Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on July 14, 2018, 03:54:37 PM
-
Hi Eveyone,
What is God? Maybe I have posted this before but never mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ0e8JRu_9U
Hope you like it.
Cheers,
Sriram
-
The idea of god/gods is created by humans, there being no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.
-
Without a referent to measure against, absolutely anything you like.
-
Good delivery as is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6XAvuRn4Q
-
Good delivery as is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6XAvuRn4Q
BRILLIANT that sums god up so well. ;D ;D ;D
-
For those who are eager to merely blurt out their fondly held opinions but don't want to listen to what has been posted...here is a simple summary.
Sadhguru says in the video that, our images of God are man made and depend on our own identity. The actual source of creation cannot be known and we can only dissolve in it.
-
For those who are eager to merely blurt out their fondly held opinions but don't want to listen to what has been posted...here is a simple summary.
Sadhguru says in the video that, our images of God are man made and depend on our own identity. The actual source of creation cannot be known and we can only dissolve in it.
Was agreeing until the phrase 'we can only dissolve in it'. What does that mean?
-
In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.
-
In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.
How awful, no thanks. :o
-
In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.
Ah, right, thanks. Would agree with the first bit. Second bit, well, still a vague meaning to me as no idea what Absolute Consciousness means but think it will always be how it is in these types of discussions.
-
Ah, right, thanks. Would agree with the first bit. Second bit, well, still a vague meaning to me as no idea what Absolute Consciousness means but think it will always be how it is in these types of discussions.
Yes, I think you are right. Unless there is some degree of interest in 'Eastern' schools of thought then the discussion is likely to degenerate into slick dismissive remarks. 'Absolute Consciousness' probably refers to the Sanskrit word 'Satchitananda' which is really three words meaning 'Being, consciousness and bliss or joy'. It is absolute in the sense that it is said to permeate all. You cannot have and 'idea' of it as that would just be a mental idea which is why knowing it means to consciously merge with it. There are a variety of yogas which are methods to lead to that 'state'. I believe there are mystics associated with some 'Western' religions who see union with God as a merging rather than sustaining individuality. It is experiential rather than philosophical and so doesn't lend itself to discussion too well.
-
Yes, I think you are right. Unless there is some degree of interest in 'Eastern' schools of thought then the discussion is likely to degenerate into slick dismissive remarks. 'Absolute Consciousness' probably refers to the Sanskrit word 'Satchitananda' which is really three words meaning 'Being, consciousness and bliss or joy'.
It struck me as being equivalent of ''Ecstasy''.
-
Actually, there are many natural states of consciousness. The innermost ones produce a feeling of bliss and fulfillment. One of the aims of spirituality is to consciously 'wade' through the various levels of consciousness and seek the inner most level. This takes a lifetime of rigorous training and guided yogic practice, besides many other lifestyle restrictions.
In this way people manage to discipline their outer mental states slowly over time and then work their way inwards to deeper levels of consciousness. Once this is achieved it is a more or less permanent state and is believed to be a form of liberation from the cycle of life and death.
However, it is possible that through certain drugs, the outer mental states can be temporarily removed so that the person can feel certain blissful states of mind. The mind cannot be controlled through such methods and it results in the outer mental states rebounding back with great force. This results in messing around with the mind and brain, in addictions and severe damage to mental processes.
-
It struck me as being equivalent of ''Ecstasy''.
Quite possibly. The Greek origin of the word meant standing outside oneself which suggests a state of being beyond the physical and mental. I seem to remember that the word 'paradise' had a Greek origin paradeisos which meant beyond form. The Jesus method, perhaps badly translated as 'repent', was metanoia - beyond mind.
-
I thought TPFK was referring to the drug 'Ecstasy'....which is why I mentioned it in my earlier post. Maybe I am wrong.
-
In a simple sense, it means that we can only experience it. In a more involved sense it means that we eventually merge with the Absolute Consciousness and lose our individual identity. Like rivers flowing into the ocean.
I'd give you a first in bollocksology Sriram, top flight honours, mind you on this particular subject I suppose you can invent anything you like state it in writing with enough of the equivalent of an authoritative voice, and then hay presto instant religion, or religious belief dependent on however you prefer to present your ideas on this subject.
Regards ippy
-
I'd give you a first in bollocksology Sriram, top flight honours, mind you on this particular subject I suppose you can invent anything you like state it in writing with enough of the equivalent of an authoritative voice, and then hay presto instant religion, or religious belief dependent on however you prefer to present your ideas on this subject.
Regards ippy
:) Just so!
-
:) Just so!
Cheers Susan, I take it although it looks to me you're going along with my post I hope you're not writing off the blue Elephant headed male figure that hangs around with a flying rat or 'Star Trek'?
Kind regards ippy
-
I thought TPFK was referring to the drug 'Ecstasy'....which is why I mentioned it in my earlier post. Maybe I am wrong.
No I was referring to the state of ecstacy as described by Ekim.
Unfortunately some great greek based words have had there original meanings usurped by modern version and it is a tactic of antitheists on this forum to use modern and colloquial definitions and disallow traditional definitions.
The obvious example is intelligent creator which people are quite willing to accept in the context of some evolved being in another notional universe but disallow the idea of intelligent creation in religious thought.
-
The idea of god/gods is created by humans, there being no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.
A positive claim, therefore:
1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence
2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?
-
1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence
If the Conquistadors visiting central America had found a society that worshipped the Christian god, that might be evidence. Or, to bring it up to date, if aliens landed and it turned out they were Christians.
If there is a god or gods and it/they manifested to humans, surely all gods would be fairly similar.
2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?
Well the fact that there are so many different gods all of whom seem to reflect the image of their worshippers is pretty good evidence. They can't all be real and if they are not, who invented them if not humans?
-
Yes, I think you are right. Unless there is some degree of interest in 'Eastern' schools of thought then the discussion is likely to degenerate into slick dismissive remarks. 'Absolute Consciousness' probably refers to the Sanskrit word 'Satchitananda' which is really three words meaning 'Being, consciousness and bliss or joy'. It is absolute in the sense that it is said to permeate all. You cannot have and 'idea' of it as that would just be a mental idea which is why knowing it means to consciously merge with it. There are a variety of yogas which are methods to lead to that 'state'. I believe there are mystics associated with some 'Western' religions who see union with God as a merging rather than sustaining individuality. It is experiential rather than philosophical and so doesn't lend itself to discussion too well.
Oh, I dunno. What about Spinoza or Berkley? Lots of ideas in there about existence being defined entirely by consciousness and experience and a one-ness with an original creator force or being (a Christian God according to them of course)
-
A positive claim, therefore:
1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence
2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?
It does say 'the idea of Gods' not 'Gods' so since humans have ideas isn't this a valid statement? Just a thought (idea?).
-
It does say 'the idea of Gods' not 'Gods' so since humans have ideas isn't this a valid statement? Just a thought (idea?).
I think that in the sense you mean it, the idea of Gods and God(s) are not mutually exclusive.
I think though that in the sense LittleRoses means it, the idea of Gods is a deduction from her oft-repeated statement that there is no (verifiable) evidence to support the existence of God.
-
I think that in the sense you mean it, the idea of Gods and God(s) are not mutually exclusive.
Of course they are: ideas of hobbits and hobbits are mutually exclusive - yes?
I think though that in the sense LittleRoses means it, the idea of Gods is a deduction from her oft-repeated statement that there is no (verifiable) evidence to support the existence of God.
She's mentions 'the idea of Gods': do you dispute that ideas about anything arise only from the brains of people? While we're at it do you have any verifiable evidence to the support the existence of Gods?
-
Oh, I dunno. What about Spinoza or Berkley? Lots of ideas in there about existence being defined entirely by consciousness and experience and a one-ness with an original creator force or being (a Christian God according to them of course)
Yes, perhaps I didn't choose my words well enough. I was attempting to distinguish between 'knowing' as experiential (or in-periential if there was such a word) and 'knowing' from a collection of concepts arising from philosophical discussion. From the 'Eastern' perspective experiential knowing is more relevant than bandying around 'lots of ideas'. The former tends towards inner stillness and the latter towards inner agitation.
-
Wouldn't the answer be, a god is only an 'idea' that's frequently developed by the imaginations of disparate groups of humans.
ippy
-
I think that in the sense you mean it, the idea of Gods and God(s) are not mutually exclusive.
No idea what you mean there.
I think though that in the sense LittleRoses means it, the idea of Gods is a deduction from her oft-repeated statement that there is no (verifiable) evidence to support the existence of God.
Best deal with what is said thiough rather than what you deduce.
-
A positive claim, therefore:
1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence
2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?
When have you provided evidence to support the existence of a god? It is in the same league as claiming fairies exist.
-
When have you provided evidence to support the existence of a god? It is in the same league as claiming fairies exist.
Seconded. The posters like SotS and AB have these impenetrable metaphorical blinkers on, past which theycannot and will not see. They will not even acknowledge that such barriers might exist. It is sad.
-
When have you provided evidence to support the existence of a god? It is in the same league as claiming fairies exist.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams.
Makes more sense to me than A B's or Sword's daft utterances, (assertions).
Regards ippy.
-
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams.
I don't why he asked this question since if he is right he will never know.
-
I don't why he asked this question since if he is right he will never know.
So that's philosophy summarily dispensed with, then.
-
So that's philosophy summarily dispensed with, then.
I don't understand why Adams felt he was being made to believe in God.
-
Who says he was?
-
Who says he was?
Why else would he say it? What other philosophy is it supposed to embody?
-
Why else would he say it? What other philosophy is it supposed to embody?
That people feel they have to add some supernatural element to the natural world?
-
That people feel they have to add some supernatural element to the natural world?
OK that is what people like Adams feel. How do they know that's what is going on rather than people assuming that the natural world is all there is?
Alternatively how do we know that Adams and his ilk are not subtracting something?
-
Alternatively how do we know that Adams and his ilk are not subtracting something?
Well a good starting point would be to prove that the something that you suggest is being subtracted actually exists. And the onus for that rests entirely with those making that claim of course - Adams doesn't have to prove that there is something in the garden beyond that which we can verifiably demonstrate exists. The onus rests with those that may claim something to be in the garden for which there is not one jot of evidence for its existences.
And Adams is also perfectly justified in asking why some people need to add to that which we know to exist, something that there is no evidence for its existence.
-
OK that is what people like Adams feel. How do they know that's what is going on rather than people assuming that the natural world is all there is?
Alternatively how do we know that Adams and his ilk are not subtracting something?
No idea. I was explaining the quote.
-
Well a good starting point would be to prove that the something that you suggest is being subtracted actually exists. And the onus for that rests entirely with those making that claim of course - Adams doesn't have to prove that there is something in the garden beyond that which we can verifiably demonstrate exists. The onus rests with those that may claim something to be in the garden for which there is not one jot of evidence for its existences.
And Adams is also perfectly justified in asking why some people need to add to that which we know to exist, something that there is no evidence for its existence.
No the GOOD starting point would be to prove Adams assertions and premise rather than for me to prove my basis for having the temerity to question Adams.
Believers are not claiming anything here since the quote is all Adams.
I certainly don't claim that there is anything extra in the garden since I don't believe it to be godless.
Adams is making a straw man argument....
-
I certainly don't claim that there is anything extra in the garden since I don't believe it to be godless.
Rarely have I seen such a self-refuting, internally contradictory statement served up hot and steaming straight from the northern end of a southbound horse.
If you don't think the garden is godless then you are indeed claiming that there's something extra in it - namely, a god.
I think that that stands in need of demonstration.
-
Rarely have I seen such a self-refuting, internally contradictory statement served up hot and steaming straight from the northern end of a southbound horse.
If you don't think the garden is godless then you are indeed claiming that there's something extra in it - namely, a god.
I'm claiming God is there in the same way I would claim a lawn is there...I e. Nothing particularly extra.
What Adams suffers from and thus provides the genome for spawn of Dawkins like yourself is mistaking whimsical antitheist humour aka argumentum ad ridiculum for philosophy.
-
I'm claiming God is there in the same way I would claim a lawn is there...I e. Nothing particularly extra.
Are you claiming that we can tell that a god is present in the same way that we can tell a lawn is present? If not, what other method are you using?
What Adams suffers from and thus provides the genome for spawn of Dawkins like yourself is mistaking whimsical antitheist humour aka argumentum ad ridiculum for philosophy.
Word salad - very refreshing on a warm day.
-
Are you claiming that we can tell that a god is present in the same way that we can tell a lawn is present? If not, what other method are you using?
Word salad - very refreshing on a warm day.
No you are trying to limit me to an empiricist frame.
What I am saying is that God is, just like a lawn is.
I cannot say that Gos is there I.e. Located. But I am claiming that he exists and being trumps argument.
I am also claiming that Adams statement is really a statement of scientism, physicalism and especicially empiricism.
Given that he has a lot to try and justify and if you are going to be stupid enough to quote him then you've got that whole burden of justification.
If you are claiming a philosophy behind the whimsy, Shaker, get cracking.
-
No you are trying to limit me to an empiricist frame.
What I am saying is that God is, just like a lawn is.
I cannot say that Gos is there I.e. Located. But I am claiming that he is.
So simply asserting it, then. Hitchens's Razor applies.
-
So simply asserting it, then. Hitchens's Razor applies.
No, Ippy quotes Adams, Adams makes assertions.
Hitchens razor? Apply it to Adams.
-
No the GOOD starting point would be to prove Adams assertions and premise rather than for me to prove my basis for having the temerity to question Adams.
No it wouldn't - a good starting point would be to prove what is in the garden and what isn't. And given that Adams is basing his arguments on that which we know to exist in the garden there is no onus for him to go further, on that basis that he makes no controversial and baseless statements.
To suggest he is subtracting (as you do) is, by inference, to suggest that there is something in the garden beyond that which we know to exist. That being the case the onus is on you to prove that something to actually exist.
-
No, Ippy quotes Adams, Adams makes assertions.
What assertion does Adams make? His quote ends with a question mark if I recall correctly.
Hitchens razor? Apply it to Adams.
Although Adams's quote predates Hitchens's by some years, Adams is applying the same principle. The specific formulation is Hitchens's own and dates from 2003, but it's actually a restatement of the old Latin principle quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
-
What assertion does Adams make? His quote ends with a question mark if I recall correctly.
Here's you remarking on my criticism of Adams' statement
''So that's philosophy summarily dispensed with, then.''
So Shaker let's see a justification for the philosophy.
...The philosophies asserted being of course Empiricism, physicalism, Scientism.
To which, at the risk of being accused of argumentum ad ridiculum, I could add Dawkinism.
Many theists are arguing that God is fundemental to the Garden. That is hardly a claim that God is in anyway extra.
Adams proposes a theist who thinks like an empiricist. That's the type of 'cleverness' which can propel someone up their own rectum.
-
No it wouldn't - a good starting point would be to prove what is in the garden and what isn't.
AKA Ontology i.e. Being...or would you prefer to start from Empiricism i.e. being there?
-
To which, at the risk of being accused of argumentum ad ridiculum, I could add Dawkinism.
I'm glad you're aware of how ridiculous you sound.
Many theists are arguing that God is fundemental to the Garden. That is hardly a claim that God is in anyway extra.
Of course it is. A garden with a god in or behind it has something extra compared to a garden without. Do you not know what extra means?
Adams proposes a theist who thinks like an empiricist. That's the type of 'cleverness' which can propel someone up their own rectum.
If a theist thought like an empiricist they wouldn't be a theist. Theism is fideism, not empiricism.
-
Of course it is. A garden with a god in or behind it has something extra compared to a garden without. Do you not know what extra means?
You are mixing the metaphor with what the metaphor means. So Adams refers to fairies for God and the Garden for the universe.
He opens himself to a charge of argumentum ad ridiculum and of proclaiming a physical materialst universe.
Both need justification.
Come on then give it.
-
You are mixing the metaphor with what the metaphor means. So Adams refers to fairies for God and the Garden for the universe.
I think most of us had got there anyway but thanks all the same.
He opens himself to a charge of argumentum ad ridiculum and of proclaiming a physical materialst universe.
Which is exactly what it looks like. If you've come up with some methodology for investigating a non-physical, non-material universe - which is exactly what you'd need - then I'd love to hear about it.
Both need justification.
Come on then give it.
What needs justification are your assertions (#40; #42; #44) that a god is somehow present in or behind the garden. Not merely that such a thing exists - any fool can simply assert that, and frequently do - but the means by which this is known.
I'm all ears.
-
What needs justification are your assertions (#40; #42; #44) that a god is somehow present in or behind the garden. Not merely that such a thing exists - any fool can simply assert that, and frequently do - but the means by which this is known.
I'm all ears.
What needs justification are Adams assertions. If philosophical as you claim some justification should be forthcoming but here you are assiduously trying to avoid the prospect.
Why should empiricism, physicalism, naturalism etc be immune from any challenge to justify them?
regarding Adams and Hitchens, were they around today I think they would be astounded at the retreat of their spawn from a committed antitheism, naturalism, empiricism and scientism.
-
What needs justification are Adams assertions.
Which are?
If philosophical as you claim some justification should be forthcoming but here you are assiduously trying to avoid the prospect.
You're the one asserting a god (#40, #42 and #44, if you recall). Seems to me you're the one with all the heavy lifting to do.
Why should empiricism, physicalism, naturalism etc be immune from any challenge to justify them?
Who claims that they are?
regarding Adams and Hitchens, were they around today I think they would be astounded at the retreat of their spawn from a committed antitheism, naturalism, empiricism and scientism.
What "retreat"?
-
What needs justification are Adams assertions.
No they don't because all that Adams claims (i.e. what can be demonstrably evidenced as being in the garden) is, well, already demonstrably evidenced.
It is you who is countering his evidenced assertion but claiming there could be something else in the garden - that something not demonstrated to even exist, let alone be in the garden. As such the burden of justification lies entirely with you. Once you've got off the starting block by demonstrating that additional something (be it god or fairies) actually exists, then we might be able to get into a discussion about whether that god or those fairies are in the garden. But until that point Adams comments need no further justification.
-
No they don't because all that Adams claims (i.e. what can be demonstrably evidenced as being in the garden) is, well, already demonstrably evidenced.
He is obviously talking from an empiricists point of view(and then constructing some straw man hybrid of a theist and empiricist) and empiricism needs justified. Come on then.
-
It is you who is countering his evidenced assertion
Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?
-
Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?
So are you denying that the grass in the garden exists, or the roses, or the trees and shrubs, or the swing by the pond?
We can readily determine that grass, roses, trees, shrubs, swings and ponds exist and then ascertain their presence in this particular garden.
-
Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?
Tell me, Vlad: if you have a garden with a lawn, and you liked a neat lawn, do you think you would be justified in buying a lawnmower?
-
So are you denying that the grass in the garden exists, or the roses, or the trees and shrubs, or the swing by the pond?
Not at all....you've missed God out.
-
Presumably he has no need of that hypothesis.
-
Tell me, Vlad: if you have a garden with a lawn, and you liked a neat lawn, do you think you would be justified in buying a lawnmower?
Sorry you've lost me what has that got to do with the proof of empiricism?
Empiricism
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.
-
Sorry you've lost me what has that got to do with the proof of empiricism?
Empiricism
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.
You observe that the grass has grown and needs cutting.
-
No they don't because all that Adams claims (i.e. what can be demonstrably evidenced as being in the garden) is, well, already demonstrably evidenced.
Since he also claims that's all there is then you are wrong.
-
You observe that the grass has grown and needs cutting.
Yeeesssss…..and?
-
Yeeesssss…..and?
Is your observation that the grass has grown empirical evidence (that grass can grow) or not?
-
Is your observation that the grass has grown empirical evidence (that grass can grow) or not?
Yes.
Now please demonstrate how empirical evidence proves empiricism.
-
Yes.
Now please demonstrate how empirical evidence proves empiricism.
My initial response was to your 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?': you seem to agree that an observation that grass can be observed to have grown is empirical evidence. Yes?
-
My initial response was to your 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?': you seem to agree that an observation that grass can be observed to have grown is empirical evidence. Yes?
I'm sorry but empirical evidence does not ''evidence'' empiricism (see the definition).
In the same way as methodological materialism doesn't evidence philosophical materialism. Game over for you Gordon.
-
I'm sorry but empirical evidence does not ''evidence'' empiricism (see the definition).
In the same way as methodological materialism doesn't evidence philosophical materialism. Game over for you Gordon.
Not really, Vlad: you asked 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced' and you've agreed that the observation that grass can grow is correct. This observation is based on a 'sensory experience' (which your definition mentions) that grass can indeed grow: hence the need for lawnmowers.
Do you have a point or are you just, as usual, trying to pick a fight over nothing. Of course you probably prefer not to cut the grass: since that could be a recipe for straw, which is a commodity you make use of frequently. For example, when you volunteered that 'materialism doesn't evidence philosophical materialism' - when nobody said that it did.
-
Not really, Vlad: you asked 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced' and you've agreed that the observation that grass can grow is correct. This observation is based on a 'sensory experience' (which your definition mentions) that grass can indeed grow: hence the need for lawnmowers.
Since Adams' quote concerns Empiricism (He thinks that there is no God in the universe according to his metaphor). His heirs need to justify that Empiricism.
I have no fucking idea why you are wittering on about lawnmowers.
-
Since Adams' quote concerns Empiricism (He thinks that there is no God in the universe according to his metaphor). His heirs need to justify that Empiricism.
I have no fucking idea why you are wittering on about lawnmowers.
In that case: 'whoosh'.
-
In that case: 'whoosh'.
I don't think making the sound of a lawn mower helps your ''case'' Gordon.
-
I don't think making the sound of a lawn mower helps your ''case'' Gordon.
As I said: 'whoosh'.
-
As I said: 'whoosh'.
Gordon evidencing Empiricism:
Tell me, Vlad: if you have a garden with a lawn, and you liked a neat lawn, do you think you would be justified in buying a lawnmower?
You observe that the grass has grown and needs cutting.
Is your observation that the grass has grown empirical evidence (that grass can grow) or not?
My initial response was to your 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?': you seem to agree that an observation that grass can be observed to have grown is empirical evidence. Yes?
Vlad: you asked 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced' and you've agreed that the observation that grass can grow is correct. This observation is based on a 'sensory experience' (which your definition mentions) that grass can indeed grow: hence the need for lawnmowers.''
-
Gordon evidencing Empiricism:
Tell me, Vlad: if you have a garden with a lawn, and you liked a neat lawn, do you think you would be justified in buying a lawnmower?
You observe that the grass has grown and needs cutting.
Is your observation that the grass has grown empirical evidence (that grass can grow) or not?
My initial response was to your 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?': you seem to agree that an observation that grass can be observed to have grown is empirical evidence. Yes?
Vlad: you asked 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced' and you've agreed that the observation that grass can grow is correct. This observation is based on a 'sensory experience' (which your definition mentions) that grass can indeed grow: hence the need for lawnmowers.''
Have you finished thrashing around yet, Vlad?
I take it you agree that there can be empirical evidence of phenomena?
-
Not at all....you've missed God out.
And fairies, and pink unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters and the invisible rainbow coloured climbing frame that is undetectable.
If you want to claim that unevidenced entities exist within the garden you need to demonstrate that they firstly exist, and secondly that they are within the garden. Until or unless you do then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the garden contains things that are known to exist.
-
Have you finished thrashing around yet, Vlad?
I take it you agree that there can be empirical evidence of phenomena?
Yes, Now either be so good as to show how that 'evidences' Empiricism.
If you don't in your reply we can conclude that you can't.
-
And fairies, and pink unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters and the invisible rainbow coloured climbing frame that is undetectable.
If you want to claim that unevidenced entities exist within the garden you need to demonstrate that they firstly exist, and secondly that they are within the garden. Until or unless you do then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the garden contains things that are known to exist.
I think we are supposed to see fairies, pink unicorns, and I've certainly seen spaghetti fly.
-
I think we are supposed to see fairies, pink unicorns, and I've certainly seen spaghetti fly.
And the invisible rainbow coloured climbing frame that is undetectable?
-
And the invisible rainbow coloured climbing frame that is undetectable.
Look...…….. how does the existence of empirical evidence 'evidence' empiricism?
-
Yes, Now either be so good as to show how that 'evidences' Empiricism.
If you don't in your reply we can conclude that you can't.
I'm simply pointing out that some evidence can be considered empirical - would you not agree?
-
I'm simply pointing out that some evidence can be considered empirical - would you not agree?
I answered this in reply 68
Your love of inquisition seems to have got the better of you.
-
Vlad is trying to reverse the argument as usual. He was supposed to be offering evidence as to the existence of fairies or God in the garden, but he has managed to switch the discussion onto empiricism.
I think the relation between using empirical techniques and empiricism is complicated, since some people who use empirical techniques might not be full-going empiricists. For example, they might think that some knowledge is innate - often known as rationalism. So it's not black and white.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
-
Vlad is trying to reverse the argument as usual. He was supposed to be offering evidence...…..
Why? Because no one can justify Adams' empiricism and materialism?
You seem to be saying that neither of these needs justification.
-
Why? Because no one can justify Adams' empiricism and materialism?
You seem to be saying that neither of these needs justification.
I thought he was using empirical observations about the garden and the fairies. I have no idea if he supported empiricism or materialism as philosophical positions. Method is different from philosophy.
-
Why? Because no one can justify Adams' empiricism and materialism?
I've no idea about Adams' philosophical stance. You are doing your usual distraction tactic of trying to tell people that they have a particular philosophical view, that they have never actually put forward, and asking them to justify it - it's a kind of straw man.
If you are going to argue for the reality of something, then empirical evidence is one way to do it because it is intersubjective. The empirical world may not actually exist but if it doesn't it might as well, because it is inescapable. Neither does it need to be all that exists for it to be useful as a basis for evidence. One doesn't need to take a philosophical stance on those questions.
If you are going to propose the existence of something that isn't clearly a part of the intersubjective world, then it's up to you to come up with some reason to take your claim seriously - it's the normal philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)).
-
I've no idea about Adams' philosophical stance.
I find that hard to believe in people who"get" Adams metaphor of fairies and gardens, I'm afraid.
-
I find that hard to believe in people who"get" Adams metaphor of fairies and gardens, I'm afraid.
See the rest of my post.
-
See the rest of my post.
There is a burden of proof on statements of empiricism and materialism I'm afraid.
I wonder if you are under the apparent delusion that they have none.
-
Being empirical is not the same as empiricism.
-
Being empirical is not the same as empiricism.
I agree but there is no way IMV that a full reading of Adams' statement as provided by Ippy can leave us with the impression that Adams was merely waxing empirical rather than being empiricist.
-
There is a burden of proof on statements of empiricism and materialism I'm afraid.
What "statements of empiricism" are you referring to? I have never claimed that either empiricism or materialism are true. As I said, read my post: #88 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15840.msg740823#msg740823).
-
What "statements of empiricism" are you referring to? I have never claimed that either empiricism or materialism are true. As I said, read my post: #88 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15840.msg740823#msg740823).
Adams statement is a metaphor for empiricism and materialism IMV.
-
Adams statement is a metaphor for empiricism and materialism IMV.
I can't speak for Adams but reading a philosophical position into a simple quote like that seems utterly absurd to me.
-
I can't speak for Adams but reading a philosophical position into a simple quote like that seems utterly absurd to me.
Admitting not to speak for Adams and then trying to exonerate him from making an empiricist metaphor is the absurdity here?
I see you are back on the utterlies again.
-
Admitting not to speak for Adams and then trying to exonerate him from making an empiricist metaphor is the absurdity here?
I'm not attempting to "exonerate" him from anything. He may or may not have been philosophically materialist or empiricist, I just don't think you can possibly know that from that one quote. You have form for pretending other people are taking philosophical positions they have never actually taken and this seems like an extreme case.
-
I think Vlad is just trying to annoy people. I was just thinking, when I cross the road I use empirical observation, but that doesn't make me an empiricist.
-
I think Vlad is just trying to annoy people. I was just thinking, when I cross the road I use empirical observation, but that doesn't make me an empiricist.
No, but the words of Adams metaphor means it is empiricist.
-
No, but the words of Adams metaphor means it is empiricist.
No more than looking when you cross the road...
-
No more than looking when you cross the road...
Do empiricists never cross the road?
-
Do empiricists never cross the road?
Only when they judge it safe to do so.
-
Only when they judge it safe to do so.
That's reasonable. I was worried that you were going to say they float above them.
-
That's reasonable. I was worried that you were going to say they float above them.
Try this lot Vlad, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4.Douglas_Adams
Do tell us about the quotes of his on this link that you manage to understand, if any.
Regards ippy.
-
Looking at a few popular articles on empirical/empiricist, they often get conflated. But one is about method, the second about philosophy. So if someone is being empirical (and everyone is at times), that doesn't mean they're an empiricist. Well, Vlad is deliberately conflating them.
-
Try this lot Vlad, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4.Douglas_Adams
Regards ippy.
Certainly, if I have trouble getting to sleep.......
-
Moderator:
Discussion of BHS's posting style and activity here is clearly off-topic in a thread entitled 'What is God' - so we've decided to remove the posts in this exchange as a derail.
-
What is God?
Why take the bother to ask? Nobody knows the answer.
Regards ippy
-
What is God?
Why take the bother to ask? Nobody knows the answer.
Regards ippy
Yes...you're right that no one knows what God really is. But there are some general ideas that are common across the world in all cultures.
God is said to be the innermost Consciousness within us all that generates everything else. It is not an external being. You can think of it as similar to the idea of the String.
-
Yes...you're right that no one knows what God really is. But there are some general ideas that are common across the world in all cultures.
God is said to be the innermost Consciousness within us all that generates everything else. It is not an external being. You can think of it as similar to the idea of the String.
Yes, 'said to be' and that's all, not something that's worth taking any serious time over.
Regards ippy.
-
Yes, 'said to be' and that's all, not something that's worth taking any serious time over.
Regards ippy.
For people who realize that the material world is not everything and who want to explore the real inherent forces that power the world, it can be a very serious matter! More important than life itself.
The need to dive deeper into our own inner forces can be extremely powerful.
-
Yes...you're right that no one knows what God really is. But there are some general ideas that are common across the world in all cultures.
God is said to be the innermost Consciousness within us all that generates everything else. It is not an external being. You can think of it as similar to the idea of the String.
That is not a general idea common across the world in all cultures. Much more commonly, gods have been imagined as distinct beings, separate from other life. The idea of worship is predicated on a being to be the object of devotion, no one prays to a String.
-
That is not a general idea common across the world in all cultures. Much more commonly, gods have been imagined as distinct beings, separate from other life. The idea of worship is predicated on a being to be the object of devotion, no one prays to a String.
This will need a lot of explaining....but to put it simply...praying is a form of subjective submission to the inner forces. It takes on an external form because that's the way the mind works.
Explaining the idea as similar to a String is only for our understanding, for those people who cannot understand how something can internally control and transform itself to generate the world.
That idea doesn't help in our subjective inner journey.
-
For people who realize that the material world is not everything and who want to explore the real inherent forces that power the world, it can be a very serious matter! More important than life itself.
The need to dive deeper into our own inner forces can be extremely powerful.
This lot's for people that don't even realize thy're more than likely airheads the ones that think looking and sounding seriously important is enough, we all have the misfortune to meet these people from time to time, the ones that think their ideas are even more important than evidence based ideas; now I wonder who it was I was thinking of in particular?
Regards ippy
-
This lot's for people that don't even realize thy're more than likely airheads the ones that think looking and sounding seriously important is enough, we all have the misfortune to meet these people from time to time, the ones that think their ideas are even more important than evidence based ideas; now I wonder who it was I was thinking of in particular?
Regards ippy
I sometimes make the mistake of replying to you. Forgive me!! ::)
-
I sometimes make the mistake of replying to you. Forgive me!! ::)
It is a discussion forum Sriram so what were you expecting when you spout superstitious nonsense, it's the information era now and it's about time you should be parting with those baseless old stories.
It's a good time to catch up, Mr Google is only one of so many sources of info available now, no we'd rather stick to this very clever bird picking a card with all of our future written out clearly in full on it?
Regards ippy
-
Ookaay...ippy!!
Thanks & Goodnight!
-
Ookaay...ippy!!
Thanks & Goodnight!
Your words Sriram, as follows:
'For people who realize that the material world is not everything and who want to explore the real inherent forces that power the world',
I thought if anyone makes an assertion it's for them to back up whatever it is they have asserted.
Wouldn't, 'For people that feel that the material world is not everything', be a more level headed way of putting your views forward?
Regards ippy