Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on January 09, 2019, 05:13:49 PM
-
As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?
-
I think in all the excitement you neglected to define what a "true for me" entails.
You could perhaps also straighten out a few circular arguments?
-
As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?
Well, of course!
It would be nice to think that AB and a few others have realised that such agreement is the rational way forward.
-
I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.
-
Well, of course!
It would be nice to think that AB and a few others have realised that such agreement is the rational way forward.
Nobody can agree unless they understand what this gentleman means by "true for you" . Is he saying that it is a question of taste.or its a euphimism for being off your rocker or what?
-
I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.
No they don't. Or at least not all of them. And even if they do that could be read just as a reflection of the cultural and social mores that they grew up with.
-
As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?
I would consider that no such is possible on the basis of my own all too frequently stated belief that my theistic beliefs are just that - a matter of faith not a matter of fact.
YES! I wholeheartedly believe that the deoities to whom I speak in Circle at least thirteen times a yeat do exist, if I didn't I wouldn't be speaking to them.
NO! I do not expect anyone attached to any other religion to agree with me.
NO! I do not believe that anyone in the foreseeable future will be able to convince the adherenyts of the major religions of this world that their beliefs are equally of fauth not fact. You are more likely to see Donald Trump convinced to convert to being an honest man.
-
Hi everyone,
Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).
Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.
Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time. Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.
Bound to happen IMO.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).
Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.
Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time. Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.
Bound to happen IMO.
Cheers.
Sriram
I think that manifests multiple myths, the myths of progress, of continuity, of the centrality of humans, of the desire for there to be a simple underlying explanation for all things. These notions pervade and persist because they are attractive. Whatever nice little trajectory of progress we envision for ourselves, sooner or later reality will come back to bite us and force us to reset our illusions. Human civilisation as we know it will come to an end, if it is not a global pandemic or nuclear war or an asteroid strike or other such cosmic or geological event then it will be our own self induced climate change that will lead to global conflict on scales such that our knowledge and progress will be lost and humans will return to a new dark age of ignorance once again in direct brutal competition with other species for survival in a world that is no longer human-friendly. We are already on borrowed time.
-
I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.
I'm sure you'd like to think that but doubt it is true. What evidence do you have of people who say there is no God praying?
-
Hi everyone,
Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).
Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.
Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time. Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.
Bound to happen IMO.
Cheers.
Sriram
Ingenious metaphor, but that's all it is. Metaphors can be useful to illustrate an argument, but they are not arguments in themselves.
-
Hi Spud,
I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.
First, atheism isn’t “there is no God” – it’s “there is no good reason to think there to be a god (or gods)”.
Second, your premise is highly dubious because many people in trouble do not pray to a god at all.
Third, that those who do pray pray to various different gods would mean that, by your reasoning, they must know all those different gods to be real – presumably not something you’d want to argue for?
Fourth, there’s no logical path from praying in extremis to the god with which someone happens to be most familiar and that god actually therefore being real.
-
Hi Spud,
First, atheism isn’t “there is no God” – it’s “there is no good reason to think there to be a god (or gods)”.
That's agnosticism, surely.
-
Hi Sriram,
Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).
Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.
Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time. Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.
Bound to happen IMO.
“Somewhat” sketchy?!!!!!
Anyway, a nice metaphor but it says nothing to the point. Even if by various means we all ended up equally “spiritual”, elevated, at one with the universe, floating on little clouds and playing harps etc that would say nothing whatever to the absence of coherent argument for their being a god.
Theists assert there to be a personal god. As Owlswing notes, as a personal truth that’s no-one’s business but their own – they can really, really believe it to be true to their heart’s content for all it matters to anyone else – but the question is whether we’re at the end of the road here inasmuch as no contributors to this mb have ever managed a coherent argument in logic for their god to be true for anyone else too.
-
OC,
That's agnosticism, surely.
No, it's atheism. Agnosticism is something else. For an atheist t say "there is no god" would be a positive statement that would place the burden of proof on him to demonstrate the claim. To borrow from Russell, if I were to tell you that there's a teapot orbiting the Earth just beyond the range of telescopes can detect it "a-"teapotism" would be "there's no reason to think you to be right about that". "There is no teapot" on the other hand would be an opinion but not a fact.
-
I think that manifests multiple myths, the myths of progress, of continuity, of the centrality of humans, of the desire for there to be a simple underlying explanation for all things. These notions pervade and persist because they are attractive. Whatever nice little trajectory of progress we envision for ourselves, sooner or later reality will come back to bite us and force us to reset our illusions. Human civilisation as we know it will come to an end, if it is not a global pandemic or nuclear war or an asteroid strike or other such cosmic or geological event then it will be our own self induced climate change that will lead to global conflict on scales such that our knowledge and progress will be lost and humans will return to a new dark age of ignorance once again in direct brutal competition with other species for survival in a world that is no longer human-friendly. We are already on borrowed time.
None of it is a myth. We do actually see humans developing into civilized and more humane beings. We do see different individuals at different levels of development, emotionally and intellectually. We do have people experiencing NDE's. We do have documented accounts of reincarnated people. And much more.
What will come of the climate change issue I am not sure, but I think that spiritual development will only get accelerated. Maybe a part of humanity (and other species) will get destroyed. But that is part of the natural process. Many species have become extinct in the past but all that has only aided the development of humans and the emergence of civilization.
Everything is in control at some higher level of consciousness, IMO.
-
I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help
Citation needed for that claim. I know for a fact that I don't pray for help. I know it's useless.
so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.
And yet, when Christians lose loved ones, they get just as upset as non Christians and when they are in danger of death, they get just as frightened as non Christians. So deep down inside they must know that God does not exist and they are not going to heaven.
-
Hi everyone,
Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).
So, to follow the analogy to its conclusion: religion turns everything to shit.
-
Citation needed for that claim. I know for a fact that I don't pray for help. I know it's useless.
I find that the thought of praying doesn't even come to my mind.
And yet, when Christians lose loved ones, they get just as upset as non Christians and when they are in danger of death, they get just as frightened as non Christians. So deep down inside they must know that God does not exist and they are not going to heaven.
I certainly agree. I know quite a few of my contemporaries who think that, but would never actually admit it and in any case, it is not something that one can push them into facing; and this subject could only be talked of if they themselves raised it.
-
Hi Spud,
First, atheism isn’t “there is no God” – it’s “there is no good reason to think there to be a god (or gods)”.
Second, your premise is highly dubious because many people in trouble do not pray to a god at all.
Third, that those who do pray pray to various different gods would mean that, by your reasoning, they must know all those different gods to be real – presumably not something you’d want to argue for?
Fourth, there’s no logical path from praying in extremis to the god with which someone happens to be most familiar and that god actually therefore being real.
Hi blu,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1 where Paul says that everyone knows it is true that God exists, but they suppress that truth. However, I didn't know that apparently only some non-believers pray in times of crisis, so I will re-work my original argument. God may not be visible, but the things that are visible are evidence that he exists. How? To quote Matthew Henry, they "could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. 19:1; Isa. 40:26; Acts 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead."
-
Spud,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1...
Doesn't help you. I have no idea whether your reading of Romans 1 is correct or not, but you've just shifted the problem back one stage. You can't have an argument for the objective existence of a god that's "because a book says so" unless you can demonstrate first why this particular book is an infallible source.
That is, that you think a book to be accurate is a statement of faith but as yet you have no supporting logic to validate that claim.
-
Hi blu,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1 where Paul says that everyone knows it is true that God exists, but they suppress that truth.
And how would he know?
However, I didn't know that apparently only some non-believers pray in times of crisis, so I will re-work my original argument.
Really?
God may not be visible, but the things that are visible are evidence that he exists.
No, only to those that believe.
To quote Matthew Henry, they "could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. 19:1; Isa. 40:26; Acts 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead."
And how would he know?
-
Hi blu,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1 where Paul says that everyone knows it is true that God exists, but they suppress that truth. However, I didn't know that apparently only some non-believers pray in times of crisis, so I will re-work my original argument. God may not be visible, but the things that are visible are evidence that he exists. How? To quote Matthew Henry, they "could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. 19:1; Isa. 40:26; Acts 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead."
Good heavens, Spud!
You could drive a coach and horses (several in fact) through that pile of fallacious rambling.
-
Good heavens, Spud!
You could drive a coach and horses (several in fact) through that pile of fallacious rambling.
Or a steam train, Gordon?
Spud,
Doesn't help you. I have no idea whether your reading of Romans 1 is correct or not, but you've just shifted the problem back one stage. You can't have an argument for the objective existence of a god that's "because a book says so" unless you can demonstrate first why this particular book is an infallible source.
That is, that you think a book to be accurate is a statement of faith but as yet you have no supporting logic to validate that claim.
Paul's logic is explained in the quote from Matthew Henry... maybe evaluate the quote before you bin Romans 1?
-
And how would he know?
As Sriram says, we all digest food the same way; likewise we can all deduce that this ordered universe could not make itself.
-
Or a steam train, Gordon?
Indeed: several, in fact.
Paul's logic is explained in the quote from Matthew Henry... maybe evaluate the quote before you bin Romans 1?
In that case Paul's logic is fallacious rambling, as is Matthew Henry's 'explanation'.
-
Spud,
Paul's logic is explained in the quote from Matthew Henry... maybe evaluate the quote before you bin Romans 1?
If you think that Paul (or anyone else) has cogent logic for the objective existence of god then why not just tell us what it is?
-
As Sriram says, we all digest food the same way; likewise we can all deduce that this ordered universe could not make itself.
How on earth does that follow and how is that an answer anyway?
-
Hi everyone,
Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).
Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.
Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time. Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.
Bound to happen IMO.
Cheers.
Sriram
You should read 'Enlightenment Now' by Steven Pinker. (I believe it's now in paperback). He sort of agrees with your second paragraph at least, although he puts a completely different interpretation on human progress, I think you will find.
The complete title, which gives you a bit of a clue, is ' Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress'. :)
-
As Sriram says, we all digest food the same way; likewise we can all deduce that this ordered universe could not make itself.
How did you deduce that this ordered universe could not make itself?
-
As Sriram says, we all digest food the same way; likewise we can all deduce that this ordered universe could not make itself.
What? Just run that past me again, would you?
-
You should read 'Enlightenment Now' by Steven Pinker. (I believe it's now in paperback). He sort of agrees with your second paragraph at least, although he puts a completely different interpretation on human progress, I think you will find.
The complete title, which gives you a bit of a clue, is ' Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress'. :)
'Awakening consciousness' includes humanism, science and reason. It is all part of our development.
-
None of it is a myth. We do actually see humans developing into civilized and more humane beings. We do see different individuals at different levels of development, emotionally and intellectually. We do have people experiencing NDE's. We do have documented accounts of reincarnated people. And much more.
What will come of the climate change issue I am not sure, but I think that spiritual development will only get accelerated. Maybe a part of humanity (and other species) will get destroyed. But that is part of the natural process. Many species have become extinct in the past but all that has only aided the development of humans and the emergence of civilization.
Everything is in control at some higher level of consciousness, IMO.
I don't see how spiritual development would continue if we are wiped out. Progress would stop, or go backwards. Where would the 7 billion souls currently around get reincarnated into if there are no human bodies available ? Makes no sense to me.
I'd agree to an extent that we are becoming more humane and civilised over time but there is no guarantee that will continue and to some extent I think it is a veneer, an illusion, a result of better education, healthcare and prosperity rather than fundamental change in human nature. We are kinder now because we can afford to be and because we have developed greater understanding. Both these aspects can and will go into reverse and the signs are all around us, witness countries from Brazil to Hungary voting in populist leaders with walls in mind to keep out the desperate and the needy. Rather than learning the lessons of the twentieth century humans are reverting to replay 1930s politics and the stresses leading to this are only going to get worse by orders of magnitude. When our self interest is threatened magnanimity is a luxury we dispose of and we revert to savagery. Evidence also suggests levels of intelligence are diminishing globally and this may be due to the link between high atmospheric carbon and decline in cognitive function. The hotter the world gets, the stupider we become, in short. Our 'spiritual development', such as it is, is a short term flowering that, like all things, must pass.
-
I don't see how spiritual development would continue if we are wiped out. Progress would stop, or go backwards. Where would the 7 billion souls currently around get reincarnated into if there are no human bodies available ? Makes no sense to me.
I'd agree to an extent that we are becoming more humane and civilised over time but there is no guarantee that will continue and to some extent I think it is a veneer, an illusion, a result of better education, healthcare and prosperity rather than fundamental change in human nature. We are kinder now because we can afford to be and because we have developed greater understanding. Both these aspects can and will go into reverse and the signs are all around us, witness countries from Brazil to Hungary voting in populist leaders with walls in mind to keep out the desperate and the needy. Rather than learning the lessons of the twentieth century humans are reverting to replay 1930s politics and the stresses leading to this are only going to get worse by orders of magnitude. When our self interest is threatened magnanimity is a luxury we dispose of and we revert to savagery. Evidence also suggests levels of intelligence are diminishing globally and this may be due to the link between high atmospheric carbon and decline in cognitive function. The hotter the world gets, the stupider we become, in short. Our 'spiritual development', such as it is, is a short term flowering that, like all things, must pass.
Its impossible to tie it all up clearly and completely. I am not claiming that we have a comprehensive understanding of all these things. The physical world is complex enough......! We can't even tie up QM and Relativity!
However, that does not mean that we can ignore or dismiss subjective aspects, the problem of Consciousness, the Unconscious mind, NDE's and so on. The issue of Randomness leading to such complexity and development is also a major issue. It can't be taken for granted or be made into a 'randomness of the gaps'.
Its not about knowing exactly how and why all this happens. We will probably never know it all. Its about acknowledging the issues involved, the personal and subjective phenomena that we need to take seriously, the enigma of Life & Death.....and so on.
About the problems in the world...they are all a part of development. As I said, its all probably under control at some higher level of consciousness.
-
I'd agree to an extent that we are becoming more humane and civilised over time but there is no guarantee that will continue and to some extent I think it is a veneer, an illusion, a result of better education, healthcare and prosperity rather than fundamental change in human nature. We are kinder now because we can afford to be and because we have developed greater understanding. Both these aspects can and will go into reverse and the signs are all around us, witness countries from Brazil to Hungary voting in populist leaders with walls in mind to keep out the desperate and the needy. Rather than learning the lessons of the twentieth century humans are reverting to replay 1930s politics and the stresses leading to this are only going to get worse by orders of magnitude. When our self interest is threatened magnanimity is a luxury we dispose of and we revert to savagery. Evidence also suggests levels of intelligence are diminishing globally and this may be due to the link between high atmospheric carbon and decline in cognitive function. The hotter the world gets, the stupider we become, in short. Our 'spiritual development', such as it is, is a short term flowering that, like all things, must pass.
Whereas I understand what you are saying and the news we get doesn't present much optimism, but supposing the, so called, spiritual path' is intended as an individual effort rather than a mass mind process, would your comments (which I have rephrased in a personalised way) still apply and could the development be improved upon, I wonder.
"I'd agree to an extent that I are becoming more humane and civilised over time but there is no guarantee that will continue and to some extent I think it is a veneer, an illusion, a result of better education, healthcare and prosperity rather than fundamental change in human nature. I am kinder now because I can afford to be and because I have developed greater understanding. Both these aspects can and will go into reverse and the signs are all around me, witness countries from Brazil to Hungary voting in populist leaders with walls in mind to keep out the desperate and the needy. Rather than learning the lessons of the twentieth century humans are reverting to replay 1930s politics and the stresses leading to this are only going to get worse by orders of magnitude. When my self interest is threatened magnanimity is a luxury I dispose of and I revert to savagery. Evidence also suggests levels of intelligence are diminishing globally and this may be due to the link between high atmospheric carbon and decline in cognitive function. The hotter the world gets, the stupider I become, in short. My 'spiritual development', such as it is, is a short term flowering that, like all things, must pass."
-
Well, of course human nature isn't changing fundamentally - it's fixed by our genes. The fact remains that, for external reasons such as increased health, wealth, education, etc. we are getting morally better, albeit with some serious downward blips, such as the Nazis, and not everywhere at the same rate.
-
I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.
Spud - how on earth can you know what I believe in times of adversity or, indeed, at any other time.
Just so you are clear - you are wrong. In times of adversity I don't pray (although I may hope for a good outcome, but that is different). And I certainly don't suddenly recognise that I actually believe in god. Quite the reverse. Through my late teens and early twenties I thought I believed in god (largely because I thought others did) and I really tried to believe in god - but when push comes to shove I recognised that regardless of how hard I tried or how challenging the situation, I just didn't. When I recognised that fact, I recognised that I was an atheist - nothing in the past 30 years has shaken that, regardless of how tough things have become. Indeed the tougher the times the more clear it become to me that I don't believe in god, not the reverse as you imply.
-
'Awakening consciousness' includes humanism, science and reason. It is all part of our development.
Sorry, Sriram. but if you haven't read the book you have no idea at all what he is talking about.
Just to give you some idea of his thoughts on 'spirituality' here are some quotes from p433-435 of 'Enlightenment Now'.
'And since cosmic justice and metaphysical hope(as opposed to human justice and wordly hope) do not exist, then it's not meaningful to seek them; it's pointless.'
'The claim that people should seek deeper meaning in supernatural beliefs has little to recommend it'
'If (spirituality) consists in gratitude for ones's existence, awe at the beauty and immensity of the universe and humility before the frontiers of human understanding, then spirituality is indeed an experience which makes life worth living....But 'spirituality' is often taken to mean something more: the conviction that the universe is somehow personal, that everything happens for a reason, that meaning is to be found in the happenstances of life.'
'A 'spirituality' that sees cosmic meaning in the whims of fortune is not wise, but foolish. The first step towards wisdom is the realization that the laws of the universe don't care about you. The next is the realization that this does not imply that life is meaningless because people care about you, and vice versa. '
He reports a video sketch by a comedienne Amy Schumer, where she takes on the persona of a woman who says:
'So, I was texting while I was driving? And I ended up taking a wrong turn that took me directly past a vitamin shop? And I was just like, this is totally the universe telling me I should be taking calcium.'
You see, his thoughts seem to run directly contrary to yours in so many ways. This doesn't mean he is right, of course just as there is no reason to think that you are right with your idea of some sort of universal consciousness. I happen to think that he is actually far too optimistic, but at least he is prepared to put forward his point of view and back it up with both argument and statistics.
-
Sorry, Sriram. but if you haven't read the book you have no idea at all what he is talking about.
Just to give you some idea of his thoughts on 'spirituality' here are some quotes from p433-435 of 'Enlightenment Now'.
'And since cosmic justice and metaphysical hope(as opposed to human justice and wordly hope) do not exist, then it's not meaningful to seek them; it's pointless.'
'The claim that people should seek deeper meaning in supernatural beliefs has little to recommend it'
'If (spirituality) consists in gratitude for ones's existence, awe at the beauty and immensity of the universe and humility before the frontiers of human understanding, then spirituality is indeed an experience which makes life worth living....But 'spirituality' is often taken to mean something more: the conviction that the universe is somehow personal, that everything happens for a reason, that meaning is to be found in the happenstances of life.'
'A 'spirituality' that sees cosmic meaning in the whims of fortune is not wise, but foolish. The first step towards wisdom is the realization that the laws of the universe don't care about you. The next is the realization that this does not imply that life is meaningless because people care about you, and vice versa. '
He reports a video sketch by a comedienne Amy Schumer, where she takes on the persona of a woman who says:
'So, I was texting while I was driving? And I ended up taking a wrong turn that took me directly past a vitamin shop? And I was just like, this is totally the universe telling me I should be taking calcium.'
You see, his thoughts seem to run directly contrary to yours in so many ways. This doesn't mean he is right, of course just as there is no reason to think that you are right with your idea of some sort of universal consciousness. I happen to think that he is actually far too optimistic, but at least he is prepared to put forward his point of view and back it up with both argument and statistics.
Although I largely share John Grays opinion of Pinker's work and philosophy, the man does have great hair. Where does he get it done? Is it permed or natural? Could one go to a coiffure and ask for a "Stephen Pinker"
-
Although I largely share John Grays opinion of Pinker's work and philosophy, the man does have great hair. Where does he get it done? Is it permed or natural? Could one go to a coiffure and ask for a "Stephen Pinker"
I wish! Mind you I do like John Travolta's new bald look. ;D
-
I wish! Mind you I do like John Travolta's new bald look. ;D
Yes it's good but prefer the Pinker look.
-
Sorry, Sriram. but if you haven't read the book you have no idea at all what he is talking about.
Just to give you some idea of his thoughts on 'spirituality' here are some quotes from p433-435 of 'Enlightenment Now'.
'And since cosmic justice and metaphysical hope(as opposed to human justice and wordly hope) do not exist, then it's not meaningful to seek them; it's pointless.'
'The claim that people should seek deeper meaning in supernatural beliefs has little to recommend it'
'If (spirituality) consists in gratitude for ones's existence, awe at the beauty and immensity of the universe and humility before the frontiers of human understanding, then spirituality is indeed an experience which makes life worth living....But 'spirituality' is often taken to mean something more: the conviction that the universe is somehow personal, that everything happens for a reason, that meaning is to be found in the happenstances of life.'
'A 'spirituality' that sees cosmic meaning in the whims of fortune is not wise, but foolish. The first step towards wisdom is the realization that the laws of the universe don't care about you. The next is the realization that this does not imply that life is meaningless because people care about you, and vice versa. '
He reports a video sketch by a comedienne Amy Schumer, where she takes on the persona of a woman who says:
'So, I was texting while I was driving? And I ended up taking a wrong turn that took me directly past a vitamin shop? And I was just like, this is totally the universe telling me I should be taking calcium.'
You see, his thoughts seem to run directly contrary to yours in so many ways. This doesn't mean he is right, of course just as there is no reason to think that you are right with your idea of some sort of universal consciousness. I happen to think that he is actually far too optimistic, but at least he is prepared to put forward his point of view and back it up with both argument and statistics.
Hi enki,
There must be several million people whose thoughts are contrary to mine. Why should that mean anything to me?! So, big deal!! That's never worried me. There could also be several million people whose thought might coincide with mine. Does that mean I am right?!
Secondly, my understanding of spirituality is not based on such things as 'gratitude for ones existence' or 'cosmic meaning in whims and fancies' or 'finding a drug store on your way home'. That shows how little people know of spirituality.
So, lets leave it at that.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
'Awakening consciousness' includes humanism, science and reason. It is all part of our development.
Humanism, science and reason are in retreat though, globally. Your narrative of spiritual development ignores the facts. Having virtually eliminated measles, new cases are now rising even in highly educated Europe as people increasingly ignore the science in favour of internet fuelled conspiracy theories. Even in highly educated America, millions of people voted for a science denier and conspiracy theorist who would have been regarded as a fringe wacko only a decade ago. Now such people are mainstream. This is the new norm. The trends of enlightened generous thinking that led to a stable world order after the world wars of the last century might still be there but they are losing ground as people increasingly revert to type looking to narrow self interest in the face of rising societal stresses. The arc of a rising humanitarian ethos over time is not so much an indicator of spiritual development of humanity, it is more an indicator of our economic well being. When times are easy, we can afford noble, generous aspirations and congratulate ourselves on our rising humanity. As soon as times get hard though, we very quickly abandon high minded principals in favour of base self interest.
-
Humanism, science and reason are in retreat though, globally. Your narrative of spiritual development ignores the facts. Having virtually eliminated measles, new cases are now rising even in highly educated Europe as people increasingly ignore the science in favour of internet fuelled conspiracy theories. Even in highly educated America, millions of people voted for a science denier and conspiracy theorist who would have been regarded as a fringe wacko only a decade ago. Now such people are mainstream. This is the new norm. The trends of enlightened generous thinking that led to a stable world order after the world wars of the last century might still be there but they are losing ground as people increasingly revert to type looking to narrow self interest in the face of rising societal stresses. The arc of a rising humanitarian ethos over time is not so much an indicator of spiritual development of humanity, it is more an indicator of our economic well being. When times are easy, we can afford noble, generous aspirations and congratulate ourselves on our rising humanity. As soon as times get hard though, we very quickly abandon high minded principals in favour of base self interest.
The straightened economic times are the result of self serving behaviour not the other way round. Although I accept that can perpetuate self service.
Your post seems to be a commentary on the failure of humanism.
-
The straightened economic times are the result of self serving behaviour not the other way round. Although I accept that can perpetuate self service.
Your post seems to be a commentary on the failure of humanism.
Surely just a comment on the failure of humans?
-
Surely just a comment on the failure of humans?
If the central plank of humanism is human behaviour though?
-
Surely just a comment on the failure of humans?
Torridon s is very bleak conclusion for while apparently you can be good without God you can't be without money.
-
If the central plank of humanism is human behaviour though?
I didn't think that humanism was based upon the idea of supporting human behaviour, carte blanche, though, more the idea that prime importance is given to human rather than supernatural matters, using logic, reason and evidence.
-
Hi enki,
There must be several million people whose thoughts are contrary to mine. Why should that mean anything to me?! So, big deal!! That's never worried me. There could also be several million people whose thought might coincide with mine. Does that mean I am right?!
Secondly, my understanding of spirituality is not based on such things as 'gratitude for ones existence' or 'cosmic meaning in whims and fancies' or 'finding a drug store on your way home'. That shows how little people know of spirituality.
So, lets leave it at that.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fair enough, Sriram, it's just that I thought that the idea of a person opening up to consider and evaluate different ideas was something that you were in favour of. You have quite often accused others of being blinkered and not willing to even consider your ideas.
I am myself at the moment halfway through a book entitled 'How the World Thinks' by Julian Baggini, which is, in fact, a perusal of global philosophies, especially those of Japan, India, China, the Muslim World as well as the 'philosophy' of the West. I am reading it to better acquaint myself with different ideas and attitudes, and so that any which intigue me can be followed up by further involvement.
However, if your attitude is that what other people think shouldn't mean anything to you (I assume, that is, if their ideas do not coalesce with your own) then, so be it. You are welcome to your complacency. For my part I will strive to remain as open as possible and to try to understand the thinking that leads to as wide a range of ideas as possible. Only by being better informed can I hope to make sensible judgments on my own behalf.
As you say, let's leave it at that. :D
-
Humanism, science and reason are in retreat though, globally. Your narrative of spiritual development ignores the facts. Having virtually eliminated measles, new cases are now rising even in highly educated Europe as people increasingly ignore the science in favour of internet fuelled conspiracy theories. Even in highly educated America, millions of people voted for a science denier and conspiracy theorist who would have been regarded as a fringe wacko only a decade ago. Now such people are mainstream. This is the new norm. The trends of enlightened generous thinking that led to a stable world order after the world wars of the last century might still be there but they are losing ground as people increasingly revert to type looking to narrow self interest in the face of rising societal stresses. The arc of a rising humanitarian ethos over time is not so much an indicator of spiritual development of humanity, it is more an indicator of our economic well being. When times are easy, we can afford noble, generous aspirations and congratulate ourselves on our rising humanity. As soon as times get hard though, we very quickly abandon high minded principals in favour of base self interest.
Global warming may be true, but nevertheless, some places will get excessively cold also. Such opposites are part of the pendulum swing. Cyclical variations.... which provides the necessary balance.
-
Global warming may be true, but nevertheless, some places will get excessively cold also. Such opposites are part of the pendulum swing. Cyclical variations.... which provides the necessary balance.
That's nonsense. Global warming means average temperature rise across the whole planet, and the current spike in temperatures is nothing to do with natural cyclical variations and everything to do with the fact the humans have been digging carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air for the last two hundred years and chopping down the forests that provided a natural regulation mechanism for atmospheric carbon for last ten thousand years. On current trends we will have 3 to 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century which will render large swathes of equatorial Africa and Asia uninhabitable and many large coastal cities will be lost to sea level rise. There is no balance in this scenario as far as the human population is concerned. Some species will do better in a warmer climate, some will die out. But for humans there is no upside to this.
-
That's nonsense. Global warming means average temperature rise across the whole planet, and the current spike in temperatures is nothing to do with natural cyclical variations and everything to do with the fact the humans have been digging carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air for the last two hundred years and chopping down the forests that provided a natural regulation mechanism for atmospheric carbon for last ten thousand years. On current trends we will have 3 to 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century which will render large swathes of equatorial Africa and Asia uninhabitable and many large coastal cities will be lost to sea level rise. There is no balance in this scenario as far as the human population is concerned. Some species will do better in a warmer climate, some will die out. But for humans there is no upside to this.
Oh my goodness!! How microscopically you think.
All I was trying to say is that trends are one thing and cyclical variations are another thing. Even though there could be a long term trend in a specific direction cyclical variations could seem to buck the trend even though they are generally short term.
I talked of balance with regard to social changes. Social changes often seem to proceed in one specific direction but will get balanced by opposing forces that pull in the opposite direction. The right wing forces are important to balance the left wing forces that have been active for a long time now. This was bound to happen.
-
Oh my goodness!! How microscopically you think.
All I was trying to say is that trends are one thing and cyclical variations are another thing. Even though there could be a long term trend in a specific direction cyclical variations could seem to buck the trend even though they are generally short term.
I talked of balance with regard to social changes. Social changes often seem to proceed in one specific direction but will get balanced by opposing forces that pull in the opposite direction. The right wing forces are important to balance the left wing forces that have been active for a long time now. This was bound to happen.
Pendulum swings are one thing; although they don't map very well to your notion of an arc of increasing civilisedness over time we could perhaps agree that short term political mood swings sit on top of deeper underlying trends, sometimes obscuring them. I don't see any evidence for the underlying trend being a result of anything other than environmental factors such as better education and general well being however, and if/when these things start to go into steep irreversible decline later this century so too will the underlying trend of human 'civilisedness'.
-
Well, of course human nature isn't changing fundamentally - it's fixed by our genes. The fact remains that, for external reasons such as increased health, wealth, education, etc. we are getting morally better, albeit with some serious downward blips, such as the Nazis, and not everywhere at the same rate.
Yes I think that is basically right, and therein lie our deepest problems. We evolved to be effective members of a tribe, not to be global citizens, which is what we are now. Although people like Jesus countered our tribal instincts, our regard for out-groups remains one of high minded intellectual principal rather than fundamental passion. We care about children dying in Yemen, but we don't care enough to stop it.
-
Some would argue that a god must exist because the universe couldn't come into being any other way. But it is possible that one day science discovers how it came about, without the help of a deity.
-
Some would argue that a god must exist because the universe couldn't come into being any other way. But it is possible that one day science discover a how it came about, without the help of a deity.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'. That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe. Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.
-
I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'. That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe. Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.
You are probably right.
-
I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'. That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe. Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.
which is basically how Stephen Hawking describes it.
You can't get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big bang.
P.37 'Brief Answers to the Big Questions'.
-
I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'. That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe. Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.
Indeed. Cause and effect, at best questionable, break down in any idea of something that is the first cause existing. So the Kalam is built on an argument that it then contradicts. It is a logical Indian rope trick. I am not sure that we can get beyond the statement ' There is something'.
-
I don't think it makes sense to talk about 'how the universe came about'. That implies a time frame, and yet time is a property of the universe.
Not sure it does imply time and space but it does imply an explanation. This might lead into the question of is the universe contingent or necessary.
Any notion that the universe is a property of itself is clearly circular.
That might be covered by the universe being necessary?
-
Not sure it does imply time and space but it does imply an explanation. This might lead into the question of is the universe contingent or necessary.
That might be covered by the universe being necessary?
in what way is cause and effect, as we talk about it, not imply a time frame? Or indeed, 'explanation'?
-
Indeed. Cause and effect, at best questionable, break down in any idea of something that is the first cause existing. So the Kalam is built on an argument that it then contradicts. It is a logical Indian rope trick. I am not sure that we can get beyond the statement ' There is something'.
Your view of Kalam here seems to be that anything that exists has a cause. Isn't that taken care of by the caveat that any thing that begins to exist has a cause. And Torridon is talking about a universe that began to exist.
Your notion of all that can be said is "there is something" can't stand if you have already agreed limits on it and I'm not sure Torridon hasn't.
The North Pole argument doesn't work because the world of course exists in something larger.
-
in what way is cause and effect, as we talk about it, not imply a time frame? Or indeed, 'explanation'?
Cause and effect necessarily involve time? Why?
-
Your view of Kalam here seems to be that anything that exists has a cause. Isn't that taken care of by the caveat that any thing that begins to exist has a cause. And Torridon is talking about a universe that began to exist.
Your notion of all that can be said is "there is something" can't stand if you have already agreed limits on it and I'm not sure Torridon hasn't.
The North Pole argument doesn't work because the world of course exists in something larger.
That's the point. If you 'specially plead' that there is something that exists that doesn't have a beginning, then all comments on 'beginning' make no sense. Indeed the idea of time as in cause and effect becomes entirely meaningless, so you end up getting rid of cause, time and effect, and when you do that your argument then disappears. It is self contradictory.
-
Cause and effect necessarily involve time? Why?
Because they assume time's arrow. Effect follows cause. That's the basis of the classic Kalam, and Lane Craig's fatuous rephrasing.if you remove that they don't even reach the level of idiocy they try to achieve.
-
That's the point. If you 'specially plead' that there is something that exists that doesn't have a beginning, then all comments on 'beginning' make no sense. Indeed the idea of time as in cause and effect becomes entirely meaningless, so you end up getting rid of cause, time and effect, and when you do that your argument then disappears. It is self contradictory.
Sorry, If you are saying that all causes must have a beginning then you are saying that the universe is infinitely old.
If that is the case where does time come in? and if it doesn't where does change come in? And if that doesn't how does the universe come in?
Effectively you've disproved the universe.
-
Because they assume time's arrow. Effect follows cause. That's the basis of the classic Kalam, and Lane Craig's fatuous rephrasing.if you remove that they don't even reach the level of idiocy they try to achieve.
Your just ranting now and assuming but no demonstration.
-
If the universe has no explanation it is then necessary and self explanatory....the end of science.
-
Your just ranting now and assuming but no demonstration.
No, I made some points, you're just evading dealing with then by an incorrect and pountless , in terms of argument, accusation.
-
If the universe has no explanation it is then necessary and self explanatory....the end of science.
Contradictory gibberish. No explanation does not equal self exolanatory.
-
Sorry, If you are saying that all causes must have a beginning then you are saying that the universe is infinitely old.
If that is the case where does time come in? and if it doesn't where does change come in? And if that doesn't how does the universe come in?
Effectively you've disproved the universe.
I'm not saying anything about causes. The Kalam, in its original, and Lane Craig's witless reformulation, do. Your post just argues against both formulations. You may not realize that.
-
Because they assume time's arrow. Effect follows cause. That's the basis of the classic Kalam, and Lane Craig's fatuous rephrasing.if you remove that they don't even reach the level of idiocy they try to achieve.
In this article Michio Kaku states that quantum entanglement is instantaneous so presumably times arrow does not have to be assumed in cause and effect.
https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
-
Contradictory gibberish. No explanation does not equal self exolanatory.
Demonstrate.
-
Contradictory gibberish. No explanation does not equal self exolanatory.
You're doing it again! The first two words are aggressive, confrontational, and completely unnecessary.
-
I'm not saying anything about causes. The Kalam, in its original, and Lane Craig's witless reformulation, do. Your post just argues against both formulations. You may not realize that.
There you go again rant...and no demonstration.
Demonstrate how I am contradicting myself. In other words show that everything has a beginning.
I ought to tell you that I'm not married to the universe having a beginning because philosophy has envisaged Other cosmological formulations which budget for a Hoyle type universe.
Given that times arrow looks for the moment unnecessary for cause and effect.....from both quantum entanglement and a seeming inability to make the case against.....it looks like Kalam Craig Lane is back on the table.
-
Oliphant - ignore. Lunchtime.
-
There you go again rant...and no demonstration.
Demonstrate how I am contradicting myself. In other words show that everything has a beginning.
I ought to tell you that I'm not married to the universe having a beginning because philosophy has envisaged Other cosmological formulations which budget for a Hoyle type universe.
Given that times arrow looks for the moment unnecessary for cause and effect.....from both quantum entanglement and a seeming inability to make the case against.....it looks like Kalam Craig Lane is back on the table.
I thought times arrow was entropy
-
I thought times arrow was entropy
An exercise link the change from order to disorder to the regular ticking of the clock.....or not as the case may be.
How does order decrease in a proton?
-
An exercise link the change from order to disorder to the regular ticking of the clock.....or not as the case may be.
How does order decrease in a proton?
At the subatomic scale, there is no cause and effect, there is only interactions between fundamental particles. Time's arrow doesn't really have any meaning at that scale.
-
If I may, the question in the OP was:
As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?
I'm not hearing a "no" from the theists here. Should I take the silence then as a "yes" - ie, that the proposition is in fact agreed?
-
If I may, the question in the OP was:
As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?
I'm not hearing a "no" from the theists here. Should I take the silence then as a "yes" - ie, that the proposition is in fact agreed?
I think the most recent posts suggest that the so called complete demolition of Kalam and Lane Craig or however Nearly Sane phrased it was not vouchsafed.
I did ask you to expound what you mean by a "true for me" considering you don't believe experiences of God as genuine, but that explanation hasn't been forthcoming.
So I guess several factors are holding up agreement.
-
Just to bring us back on track for a mo, the kalam cosmological argument fails for reasons to do with the various assumptions and special pleading on which it relies, but it's irrelevant in any case - the question concerns arguments for a theistic god. Even if kalam held together it's just an argument for deism, not theism - it tells you nothing whatever about the characteristics of a supposed god, just that he would have started it all.
So are we now agreed that no-one here has an argument worthy of the name for a theistic god that would make it true for anyone else, however sincerely they happen to believe in this god as a personal faith belief?
-
Just to bring us back on track for a mo, the kalam cosmological argument fails for reasons to do with the various assumptions and special pleading on which it relies, but it's irrelevant in any case - the question concerns arguments for a theistic god. Even if kalam held together it's just an argument for deism, not theism - it tells you nothing whatever about the characteristics of a supposed god, just that he would have started it all.
So are we now agreed that no-one here has an argument worthy of the name for a theistic god that would make it true for anyone else, however sincerely they happen to believe in this god as a personal faith belief?
What do you mean by "true for me"
What do you understand by deism?
I ask this because I wonder what it is that would prevent a creator God from intervening in its creation?
Finally regarding first cause. I think youll find an infinite regression of contingency doesnt actually produce the goods.
-
Just to bring us back on track for a mo, the kalam cosmological argument fails for reasons to do with the various assumptions and special pleading on which it relies,
Go on then.
-
Go on then.
Ok “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Does it?
The first premise is an unjustified assertion. The whole thing immediately collapses.
-
Ok “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Does it?
The first premise is an unjustified assertion. The whole thing immediately collapses.
Why is it unjustified?
-
Why is it unjustified?
Well how do you know it is true?
-
jeremy,
Well how do you know it is true?
It's Vlad - he's never understood the burden of proof. That the answer to "why is it unjustified?" is "because no-one has justified it" just confirms that.
Either that or he's jus baiting his hook again and hoping for a bite.
-
Well how do you know it is true?
You have a point however has anything been observed to have popped out of nowhere?
Whereas cause and effect, beginning and explanation seems to be fundamental to the universe We work entirely on reason.
However if you invoke the popping out of nothing then you accept the necessity of something in this case the universe. The question then is, is the universe necessary when everything in it seems to be contingent.
Secondly there is the idea of popping out of nothing is that justified? Well we can not be sur that today virtual particles are not accounted for i.e. Pop out of nothing since they might come from somewhere else and have a reason for doing so. You would then be trying to demonstrate that something is unjustified by means of something that is unjustified
I think that that is at least enough the to say that something must be necessary. You are saying that that must be nature, but there are many arguments why that is not so.
Declaring the premise not justified then is itself not justified for we cannot say it is not true.
-
You have a point however has anything been observed to have popped out of nowhere?
Yes. Photons do it all the time.
Whereas cause and effect and explanation seems to be fundamental. We work entirely on reason.
All this "seems to be" stuff seems pretty wishy washy to me. You're trying to make a deductive argument, if the premises can't be shown to be true, your argument fails.
-
Jeremy,
Me:
It's Vlad - he's never understood the burden of proof.
Vlad:
Declaring the premise not justified then is itself not justified for we cannot say it is not true.
QED
-
jeremy,
It's Vlad - he's never understood the burden of proof. That the answer to "why is it unjustified?" is "because no-one has justified it" just confirms that.
Either that or he's jus baiting his hook again and hoping for a bite.
Burden of proof? What are you saying the default position is here? Justification is on whether it is true not whether it can be shown to be true.
How do you know that no one has justified it.
-
Declaring the premise not justified then is itself not justified
Yes it is. Nobody's justified it, so it is not justified.
-
How do you know that no one has justified it.
Because when we ask you to provide the justification, you don't provide it. Instead you start spewing bullshit and try to shift the burden of proof.
-
Because when we ask you to provide the justification, you don't provide it. Instead you start spewing bullshit and try to shift the burden of proof.
Are you saying then that it is unreasonable to suggest the universe has a reason for it?
-
Indeed. Cause and effect, at best questionable, break down in any idea of something that is the first cause existing. So the Kalam is built on an argument that it then contradicts. It is a logical Indian rope trick. I am not sure that we can get beyond the statement ' There is something'.
There is also purpose.
-
There is also purpose.
Where?
-
Are you saying then that it is unreasonable to suggest the universe has a reason for it?
No. I'm saying that no justification has been provided for the truth of the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause".
-
No. I'm saying that no justification has been provided for the truth of the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause".
And you can absolutely justify that remark?
I'm flattered that you look to me for any justification or lack of it.
I'm glad you find the first premise in my and probably others version of the Kalam cosmological business not unreasonable.
Is it more reasonable then than saying there is no reason for the universe particularly when reason seems to be a fundenental aspect of the universe?
-
Spud,
There is also purpose.
Do you have an argument to validate that remarkable claim?
-
There is also purpose.
By that Spud do you mean reason?
-
And you can absolutely justify that remark?
I don't have to. Your inability to justify the original claim and your transparent attempts to deflect the burden of proof are all the justification I need.
I'm glad you find the first premise in my and probably others version of the Kalam cosmological business not unreasonable.
Reasonableness is not at stake. It's whether the premise is a solid basis for the rest of the argument that counts. If you want the KCA to be considered seriously by me, showing that the first premise is true is just the first of a number of hurdles you must negotiate.
Is it more reasonable then than saying there is no reason for the universe particularly when reason seems to be a fundenental aspect of the universe?
In this context, I don't care whether it is more or less reasonable than some other idea. If you want me to accept the KCA, you have to show that the premises are true.
Also, if you are trying to convince me of something "it seems to be" is a combination of words that raises a red flag. Seeming to be is not the same as actually being.
-
I don't have to. Your inability to justify the original claim and your transparent attempts to deflect the burden of proof are all the justification I need. Reasonableness is not at stake. It's whether the premise is a solid basis for the rest of the argument that counts. If you want the KCA to be considered seriously by me, showing that the first premise is true is just the first of a number of hurdles you must negotiate.In this context, I don't care whether it is more or less reasonable than some other idea. If you want me to accept the KCA, you have to show that the premises are true.
Also, if you are trying to convince me of something "it seems to be" is a combination of words that raises a red flag. Seeming to be is not the same as actually being.
I take it then that you are not bothered about a justified argument for naturalism or Godfree.
Reasonableness matters when you try to argue that there are no good reasons for theism.....
And indeed when you are prepared to take a bet in favour of there being no reason for the universe....a conclusion which is in itself an act of special pleading and an act that diminishrs the value of reason.
-
I take it then that you are not bothered about a justified argument for naturalism or Godfree.
Nope.
Reasonableness matters when you try to argue that there are no good reasons for theism.....
But since we are arguing about the soundness of the KCA, that's not relevant.
And indeed when you are prepared to take a bet in favour of there being no reason for the universe....a conclusion which is in itself an act of special pleading and an act that diminishrs the value of reason.
I'd take that bet but I doubt if you are I will be around to collect when the question is finally resolved.
-
Nope.
But since we are arguing about the soundness of the KCA, that's not relevant.
I'd take that bet but I doubt if you are I will be around to collect when the question is finally resolved.
Name something then that has a beginning and does not have a reason or explanation.
-
Nope.
But since we are arguing about the soundness of the KCA, that's not relevant.
I'd take that bet but I doubt if you are I will be around to collect when the question is finally resolved.
I see you dont deny special pleading then.
-
By that Spud do you mean reason?
I loved NS's comment but wanted to elaborate on the something that is, as he reminds us, there. The something apparently isn't just there - it's there for a purpose.
-
Name something then that has a beginning and does not have a reason or explanation.
The universe, as far as we know. Even if everything in the universe has a pre-existent cause (and that appears not to be the case at the quantum level), it may not be true of the universe itself. "The universe just is, and that's all", as Bertie Russell put it.
-
Where?
Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.
The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".
-
Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.
The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".
It does not imply purpose at all.
It simply shows reaction.
This does not happen on the Moon, so does this mean there is no purpose?
-
Spud,
Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.
The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".
You're making a basic error in reasoning called the reference point error, or sometimes the lottery winner's fallacy (in which the lottery winner says, "the chances of me winning were 100m to one, I won, therefore purpose" whereas the so far as the lottery organiser was concerned the probability of a winner was one - they just didn't know or care who it would be).
-
The universe, as far as we know. Even if everything in the universe has a pre-existent cause (and that appears not to be the case at the quantum level), it may not be true of the universe itself. "The universe just is, and that's all", as Bertie Russell put it.
But if even proposing that the universe has a reason for its existence is unjustified.A universe which begins for no reason is unjustified and I .aintain it either has a reason or it doesnt and if one wants to remain non committal that state is not expressed in the screaming antitheism of this forum.
If the universe had a beginning and popped out of nothing that equals an argument that the universe is necessary rather than contingent now who would bet on this universe being necessary?
That of course is immediately undone by the question why this universe and not another or even why the u iverse and not a train set.
And yet we find people like JeremyP, Gordon and Bluehillside et cie willing to take a punt on all of this.
If to avoid this you want to appeal to an infinite universe an infinite chain of conti gency doesnt produce a universe.
If I asked to borrow a fiver from you and you had to borrow a fiver from a friend who had to borrow it ad i fi itum you wouldnt get your fiver. If you get the goods its because someone actually had produced one
-
It does not imply purpose at all.
It simply shows reaction.
This does not happen on the Moon, so does this mean there is no purpose?
There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.
If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?
-
Spud,
There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.
If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?
Yes. That only works if you persist in looking through the wrong end of the telescope for the reason I explained in my last post. If you can demonstrate first that little old you were the intended outcome all along then – but only then – can you marvel at a universe that organised itself just right for you. But then you’d be lost in circular reasoning (“god intended me, the universe is just right for me, therefore god, god intended me, the universe…" etc), which doesn’t help you at all.
-
There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.
If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?
It is safe to assume a house roof was made on purpose - its manufacture arose out of the conscious intention of the builder. The Sun and Moon arose naturally, there is no evidence of conscious intention at work.
Do you think the purpose of cancer is to make people suffer and die ?
-
But I'm pretty sure we can get beyond the statement, "there is something" (#58). There is something and it works, in the same sense that a ticking clock isn't just a non-functional random arrangement of bits of metal but is doing something.
-
Spud,
But I'm pretty sure we can get beyond the statement, "there is something" (#58). There is something and it works, in the same sense that a ticking clock isn't just a non-functional random arrangement of bits of metal but is doing something.
What do you mean by "works"?
I suspect that what you think you mean isn't what you should mean, which is that the organism you are is relatively well adapted by natural selection to suit the environment it occupies.
-
Spud,
What do you mean by "works"?
I suspect that what you think you mean isn't what you should mean, which is that the organism you are is relatively well adapted by natural selection to suit the environment it occupies.
I'm talking about the state of the matter that exists: formless or with form. That it has form can be explained either as a coincidence or by there being a reason for its form. Even so, if matter had no form there would still be the question of why it exists, as matter nowadays doesn't just appear out of nothing.
Winnie the Pooh claimed that the only reason for being a bee was making honey, so that he could eat it. He was partly right in that bees pollinate plants while feeding themselves.
-
Name something then that has a beginning and does not have a reason or explanation.
The Universe.
-
Spud,
I'm talking about the state of the matter that exists: formless or with form. That it has form can be explained either as a coincidence or by there being a reason for its form.
Or by the laws of physics working consistently.
Even so, if matter had no form there would still be the question of why it exists, as matter nowadays doesn't just appear out of nothing.
Your terminology is wrong and that’s not what physics currently tells us is the only option (quantum borrowing etc).
Winnie the Pooh claimed that the only reason for being a bee was making honey, so that he could eat it. He was partly right in that bees pollinate plants while feeding themselves.
No, he was wholly wrong. Bees make honey but that’s not the “reason” for their existence at all; rather bears evolved to eat honey.
Really try to grasp the point here: the state of the universe looks miraculous to us because the bit of it we occupy seems to fit us so well, just as a puddle might marvel at the chances of the hole it occupies fitting it just so. That’s very bad thinking though for the reason that should be obvious: circular argument.
-
The Universe.
Only in the sense that we dont seem to have it at the moment. Even the most hardened scientismatist would agree that nothing guarantees that to be the case.
What is it about the universe that has no and cannot have an explanation? Since when I look out of my castle window across our beautiful transylvanian countryside.....I see a universe of explanation.
-
The Universe.
Sorry that collapses because it cannot be justified.
-
Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.
On this planet at the moment. How does that imply purpose rather than chance?
The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".
No idea what you mean there.
-
Only in the sense that we dont seem to have it at the moment.
I look forward to you bring the evidence to the table that explains the Universe.
-
I look forward to you bring the evidence to the table that explains the Universe.
And I am looking forward to see you justify your assertion that the universe has no explanation.
-
Followed by your explanation as to what way the universe is necessary.
-
And I am looking forward to see you justify your assertion that the universe has no explanation.
Has no known explanation.
I can justify it because nobody has provided one and we can prolong this thread for years but in spite of the fact that you could win the argument just by producing evidence that the Un verse does have an explanation, we both know you won't do it.
-
Followed by your explanation as to what way the universe is necessary.
Why would I bother to do that?
-
Why would I bother to do that?
Why you would bother I know not....and frankly bothered not.
-
Why you would bother I know not....and frankly bothered not.
Why did you ask me to then?
-
However if you are saying the universe has no explanation for its origin and never will have which is what you have asserted then that would mean that the universe is necessarily the way it is.
That is your de facto position.
-
And if you are asserting that the universe is necessarily the way it is then you would be undone immediately by the question " why this universe and not another or even why the universe and not a stone?
-
Has no known explanation.
I dont think any body is arguing much against that but then even that is unjustified since we would have to know about the whole universe to know it absolutely.
That does not detract from it either having an explanation or not and the universe as the necessary entity isnt a promising argument eg find anything that isnt contingent.
-
However if you are saying the universe has no explanation for its origin and never will have which is what you have asserted then that would mean that the universe is necessarily the way it is.
That is your de facto position.
I think the position is that we do not know.
That does not mean you can make stuff up.
If you do, then you have the burden of proof.
-
There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.
If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?
That it is essential to life on earth does not prove purpose. We're here arguing about it because all the conditions for life happened to exist here. There are probably billions of other planets in our galaxy which are lifeless because the conditions weren't right. There are seven other planets and one dwarf planet in our solar system that are lifeless.
-
There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.
If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?
There is water ice I believe the moon. This means that it could be mined for drinking and rocket fuel.
There is lots of water in the solar system just not in liquid form. I think Mars also has water ice.
-
water ice
Is thereanother kind? I'll have to ponder that over an apple cider.
-
Is thereanother kind? I'll have to ponder that over an apple cider.
Well yes, methane ice, all gasses solidify when cold enough.
Hydrogen is a liquid metal in the centre of Jupiter
-
Hmmm... spoze you're right.
-
Is thereanother kind? I'll have to ponder that over an apple cider.
Dry ice.
-
Dry ice.
Yes. I was just making a feeble joke ("apple cider" is tautological, because there's no such thing as "pear cider".)
-
there's no such thing as "pear cider".)
A negative claim. The burden of proof isn on me...
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/beer-and-cider/cider/pear-cider
-
A negative claim. The burden of proof isn on me...
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/beer-and-cider/cider/pear-cider
Very funny. The alcoholic drink made from pears is properly called perry, whatever Bulmers, Tesco, etc. think.
-
A negative claim. The burden of proof isn on me...
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/beer-and-cider/cider/pear-cider
I hope Tesco is giving this forum a donation as its products are being advertised. ;D
-
Very funny. The alcoholic drink made from pears is properly called perry, whatever Bulmers, Tesco, etc. think.
Yes, you'd think, but plenty of people disagree with you. There are even some who think there is a difference between pear cider and perry.
-
I hope Tesco is giving this forum a donation as its products are being advertised. ;D
Of course not. I'm the one who posted it. The kick backs are all going to me.
Bwahahah
-
Of course not. I'm the one who posted it. The kick backs are all going to me.
Bwahahah
;D
-
Very funny. The alcoholic drink made from pears is properly called perry, whatever Bulmers, Tesco, etc. think.
I enjoyed that "properly", but I wonder who decides what's proper? You, I suppose.
-
I enjoyed that "properly", but I wonder who decides what's proper? You, I suppose.
No, of course not. Oxford Dictionaries, inter many alia. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perry
-
No, of course not. Oxford Dictionaries, inter many alia. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perry
I agree with you, but not if you lived in the US where you can talk about apple cider because cider there simply means any unfermented crushed fruit such as apple, pear, even blackcurrant cider.
-
I agree with you, but not if you lived in the US where you can talk about apple cider because cider there simply means any unfermented crushed fruit such as apple, pear, even blackcurrant cider.
'Fraid not - it's apples only. In the US, "sweet cider" means unfermented apple juice, and "hard cider" fermented, alcoholic apple juice, but it's definitely only apples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_cider
-
No doubt Jesus would approve of the discussion of alcoholic drinks on a Christian board, he seemed to rate alcohol highly, ensuring it didn't run out at a wedding, for instance! ;D
-
No, of course not. Oxford Dictionaries, inter many alia. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perry
What does that prove? It doesn't mean you can't also have pear cider.
-
No doubt Jesus would approve of the discussion of alcoholic drinks on a Christian board, he seemed to rate alcohol highly, ensuring it didn't run out at a wedding, for instance! ;D
That was wine: fermented grape juice.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wine
-
Spud,
Or by the laws of physics working consistently.
Your terminology is wrong and that’s not what physics currently tells us is the only option (quantum borrowing etc).
No, he was wholly wrong. Bees make honey but that’s not the “reason” for their existence at all; rather bears evolved to eat honey.
Really try to grasp the point here: the state of the universe looks miraculous to us because the bit of it we occupy seems to fit us so well, just as a puddle might marvel at the chances of the hole it occupies fitting it just so. That’s very bad thinking though for the reason that should be obvious: circular argument.
But you are making quite a big assumption which is that the laws of physics alone caused the universe to be how it currently is. You assume that bears evolved from non-bears, and that the sun formed by natural processes from a bunch of gas and dust. We currently don't observe such changes actually happening though.
-
No, of course not. Oxford Dictionaries, inter many alia. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perry
Well, dictionaries record usage, and language is always changing, especially vocabulary. Still, if you want to be prescriptive, go ahead.
-
Well, dictionaries record usage, and language is always changing, especially vocabulary. Still, if you want to be prescriptive, go ahead.
Some changes should be resisted, and "pear cider" is one, because the word "perry" already exists to cover it. (While were on the subject, "honey ale" should really be called "bragget", but I think that battle was lost long ago.)
-
Some changes should be resisted, and "pear cider" is one, because the word "perry" already exists to cover it. (While were on the subject, "honey ale" should really be called "bragget", but I think that battle was lost long ago.)
Yes, I get the idea of no change, but language tends to outwit us. I heard "bare" being used to mean a lot, or very, and I chuckled in admiration, as reverse slang has always interested me, see French verlan, where flic is keuf, femme is meuf and so on. And meuf is now in the dictionaries.
-
Some changes should be resisted, and "pear cider" is one, because the word "perry" already exists to cover it. (While were on the subject, "honey ale" should really be called "bragget", but I think that battle was lost long ago.)
Why are we not allowed more than one word to refer to the same thing?
-
Why are we not allowed more than one word to refer to the same thing?
Because in this case it's due to ignorance.
-
Because in this case it's due to ignorance.
My respect for you has gone up enormously. Most people find it difficult to make such an admission.
-
Har bloody har. ::)
-
My respect for you has gone up enormously. Most people find it difficult to make such an admission.
Good for you for giving credit where credit is due. ;D
-
'Fraid not - it's apples only. In the US, "sweet cider" means unfermented apple juice, and "hard cider" fermented, alcoholic apple juice, but it's definitely only apples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_cider
'Fraid Not.
Federal labeling rules supply one answer, which isn’t very satisfying to cider makers. Only fermented apples and pears may be labeled cider, according to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. If a bottle does not contain apple or pear cider, and is more than 7 percent alcohol, it must instead be labeled “fruit wine.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/dining/cider-fruit-pear.html
1.1North American An unfermented drink made by crushing fruit, typically apples.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cider
-
I remember one of my students working on extensions of meaning, as with phrases like "toy library", and so on. Dictionaries record such changes, but don't instigate them, so quoting them misses the point. A non-apple cider is quite feasible, although the purists will object.
-
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cider
Well, in British English, it is properly only the word for fermented apples, as that limk indicates.
-
Properly again!
-
Well, in British English, it is properly only the word for fermented apples, as that limk indicates.
Which I agreed with in Post 149, but not if you lived in the U.S. It seems we have come full circle. :)
-
Well, in British English, it is properly only the word for fermented apples, as that limk indicates.
But as my link to Tesco shows, that ship has sailed. Sorry, but you've lost this one.
-
Usage triumphs over prescription, as it often does. Look at phrases like "apple butter", "plum butter", language is creative!
-
"Milk"!
How many different kinds of milk are there?
-
Good one, rice milk, etc. Almond milk. But it's not proper English!
-
"Milk"!
How many different kinds of milk are there?
Cow, sheep, goat, mother's, Harvey.
-
Coconut.
-
Condensed.
-
Some changes should be resisted, and "pear cider" is one, because the word "perry" already exists to cover it. (While were on the subject, "honey ale" should really be called "bragget", but I think that battle was lost long ago.)
The only worthwhile drink made from honey is Mead either Lindifarne ot Moniak!
-
I love honey, never tasted either of the drinks you mention but if has a very sour side to it or is mixed with something sour, would like. I enjoy anything fruity with honey input.
-
You'd like cyser, then, which is apple mead.
-
https://goo.gl/images/o7uKhy