I'm not talking about whether "belief" has prerequisites, I'm talking about your "application" that you require people to undertake... does this (the application) require a prerequisite belief in the existence of God or not? Yes or No? As for the issue of evidence, you also say: You agree that the physicist can at least produce evidence - whether it be something akin to a psychedelic t-shirt print or not - and that the issue is then just understanding it... But you still seem incapable of even providing that. "Please provide us with evidence?" "You won't understand it." "Let us be the judge of that." "But you won't understand it. Until you study the normative descriptions in scripture and apply yourself correctly, you won't understand it." "But let us at least see this evidence that we won't understand." "But you won't understand it." "I don't need to understand evidence to be shown the evidence, surely?" "But if you don't understand it, how will you know it is evidence?" "Let us see it, and if we don't understand it we'll let you know." "But you won't understand it." ... And so it goes on. You require us to apply ourselves properly in order to understand the evidence. Fair enough. But you have the "psychedelic print" from the physicist. Why are you therefore not even prepared to offer something similar wth regard God - that we won't understand but you consider to be evidence nonetheless? Is it a case of you being unwilling or is it one of being incapable? Those seem to be the only options. :shrug:
The fact that you've already participated in numerous threads to discredit the evidence for god (while standing outside of the normative descriptions that surround the claim) is testimony to the futility of your request. Here's a classic example of you pulling a "psychedelic t-shirt print"
Should I take that as you being (1) unwilling; (2) incapable; or (3) both? Please also note that your Google-search is unfortunately flawed, as it merely picks threads in which I have participated and that also includes the phrase "no evidence": e.g. this result - which is also regarding homeopathy, and not evidence of God. But if you wish to include it as evidence of your case I guess it speaks volumes for what you accept as evidence, no? Furthermore, whether I am looking to discredit evidence or not is irrelevant to the response of the question I asked that you have not answered. So please have the decency to answer the simple question I asked (it only required you to answer with a 'yes' or 'no' answer): does the application you require of people have a prerequisite belief in the existence of God or not? Thanks
Jpappl Any sort of belief has no sort of prerequisite. If you're talking about a more solid standing of knowledge being a belief in an individual's experience of a phenomena, then there lies obvious advantages in the belief of texts (or the belief that a text can offer a clue or means how to verify the claim) . One could just as easily ask does does belief in claims of physics require one reads texts. Technically you could answer no, but then you observe that the training and professional practice of it certainly requires quite a lot of it. I mean how many people posting here (or even scientists in general) have measured the rest mass of a proton or carbon dated a fossil, yet launch into arguments that require theses issues as premises? two points 1 - If there are issues of application that surround a claim, it is testable. 2 - A post dated rain cheque can perhaps work in a bookie joint but not within a knowledge based claim ... particularly empiricism For as long as one remains divorced from issues of application, yes. However what there is no end to is the claim "everything can eventually be proven or dis-proven by empiricism" since its very language is metonymic sure but it wasn't an appropriate example 2+2=4 is not an issue of belief since its a pure logical construct 2 electrons + 2 electrons = 4 electrons is also a logical construct. It runs into the traditional practical challenges of knowledge when you want to evidence it however Its not so much the beauty of science but the practical limitations of knowledge relegated to metonymic observations. As already mentioned previously, this works perfectly well in the relative world. Its perfectly lousy however for using as as a departure point for making ontological claims (such as "there will come a time when everything we don't know will be known by this process") never encountered a type I or type II error in science? Or more to the point Empiricists advocate that perception is most accurate when the influence of the mind on the senses is kept to a minimum. One should carefully observe and not permit preconceived ideas to interfere with objectivity. Ridiculing this notion in Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper tells of a lecture he gave in which he asked his students to carefully observe, then write down what they observe. The students naturally wanted to know what they should observe. In other words, they asked for an idea to guide their observation. The idea, in turn, has to be fixed to a perception: Watch what I do, or Watch what happens in the window. Even the empirical truth that reality is limited to what our senses can perceive is really just an idea fixed to perception. -Substance and shadow, R. Crowley Or more correctly, what was thought to be the truth was changed as new information came afoot. Hence its folly to forget that a truth shaped by metonymic language will always continue in that fashion (that's why there are many in the field of scientific philosophy who shy away from the use of "truth" in its strict sense - for instance, just imagine what a spanner it would throw in the system if it was discovered that the speed of light is not a constant). Perhaps you have an argument if you have a scientific claim that is backed up by a host of doable practices. As far as the nature of consciousness and the origin of the universe, these claims stand quite distinct from say metal smelting The point is that empiricism doesn't have the hardware to disprove the greater claims of theism, much like a tape measure isn't the best choice of tool to disprove the findings of a thermometer. If you want to talk about a scientific theory about life or universal creation disproving a theistic claim, its not really valid since such claims have an absence of any doable practices that surround them. In fact, in most cases, you simply have to wait around for about 20 years to observe such theories being defeated by the very disciplines they appear in. Sure hence you have the potential for error at the position of theory. My point however is that you also have the potential for error at the point of application .... and also that the best method to test for error at the theory stage is to move onto the application stage. (but it doesn't end there, since one can also make errors at the stage of conclusion ... or by reading the information incorrectly ... hence coming the full circle to an error at the stage in conclusion takes one back to theory and the cycle of knowledge continues - that is at least how ascending knowledge, or knowledge that works with the individual at the top of the pyramid) that's just because they didn't fully apply themselves Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say Kind of like asking whether you have a greater problem with persons who challenge science and don't read about it, or people who support it and don't read about it. :shrug: Because you are redefining the epistemology to suit a bias A practical example might be a discussion on the method one would use to directly perceive the president. In one sense, he is simply a person behind a door, so all you really need to do is walk in to his office. Since however they are greater than yourself, it would be more practical to cultivate a shared interest with them. One also uses a similar method of submission when applying for an elite position in a corporation of institution. If you go there with the attitude "if you're so great I will give you the opportunity to prove it to me in the next half an hour" they won't be calling you back for the second intake. “ “ So the failure, getting back to the student and the information, is the information and not the student. ” well yeah ... I guess that's what the bigfoot claim needs, a means of application. Don't you? “ “ If there isn't a means of application, there isn't a strong case for realization. IOW just as the strength of application rests on the back of theory, the strength of conclusion rests on the back of application hence "absence of normative descriptions for practitioners" = "no good information" why not? After all, I could play the part of an antagonist and label all physicists as egg heads and all their work as a pile of crap. Of course it probably wouldn't impress the professionals in the field, but that alone doesn't dislodge me from my ignorance. “ there is also no change to the claims of origin for empiricism either (namely the senses). I don't think this necessarily makes it weaker (although it does help one determine in which circumstances it is less practical to use it than others) Given the fallibility of the senses, its metonymic language and the cheating propensity of the marginalized living entity, there is also a means to determine it as similarly laughable. You could belittle all those texts about the ocean on the authority of observations of one's bathroom basin. Whales? Giant squid? Plankton? And to think that it doesn't have a plug? Just look at how my bathroom basin effectively disproves the claims of oceanographers! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
try this, this, this, or this then. (the first few off the search hitlist) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Much like any field of knowledge, if the lack of belief is sufficient enough to prevent pressing forth with issues of application, then yes, it does require belief. :shrug:
I'll try top help answer some of this Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. No you don't have to read texts or become religious to know in something. You don't even have to call it God, as I preffer to use the word One. But after you discover whatever it is you need to know, looking back, you will likely be able to see the positive side of any spirtual guidance. Texts are just one way, that some people need. One side can be tested in the physical realities that we understand. The otherside just isn't understood enough to know how to test. Since only the physical side uses evidence to provide proof, those hung up on physical evidence still think they can either find physical evidence in the spirtual, or else they believe the spirtual is a fantasy since no evidence supports faith. I understand what you think, because I use to be the same! I had a life changing experience during a hard crash, that I came out of positively, before I could find the faith that I didn't think existed, in me. Science only understands the physical. Furthermore, the bigger, and smaller we look at things, the more questions and deeper we go. We are part of a cycle, not a line, Science will never know everything, because the cycle is always growing! But even if Science did figure everything out in the physical, it still will never be able to prove anything about the spirtual! End? Beginning? It ends when the cycle is over. But I imagine that will be a new beginning rather than an ending - I like to think the life cycle lasts forever, but forever is a long time. It started when the cycle began. Not a small segment at a time, but a complete cycle that has always been ever since the first signs of life, long before our universe even existed! Not a straight line, and much more to life then just our physical being. Faith is not required for any logical thinking - most proffesionals have a set time given to keep in touch with spirtuality, but they go get what they want while functioning. So yes their is many logical, rational, functioning things we do that does not require faith - although faith is a good way to stay confident when times are tough, and confidence is key to everything we do! Why would a religious text of spirtual guidance need to disproof the physics of science? Of coarse that isn't going to happen! Thats as ridiculas as asking physical evidence to disprove a spirtual faith, it can't. They are 2 oppisite sides of the same thing! Why is something invalid just because your logical mind isn't yet creative enough to understand the many different paths. What is valid to me and what is valid to you are quite different, to each his own I guess, but you seem to think you are so right, when you are demonstrating tunnel vision. We can misinterpret our messages, since they come in a metephoric form telling each of us whatever we need to know. If we focus too much on the path rather then the answer, well everyone seems to think their path is right, when their are many different paths. You assure me you are not God, hmmm - what about metephorically? Are you not the 'God' of your own body, which is full of living organisms all acting together to complete you? We don't need to fully understand anatomy to understand how amazing the body really is! I don't have an issue with anyone. I just like to share. I realize everyone must find their own way, and although I'm trying to recognize as many different ways as I can, I will never be able to fully understand anyone elses way but my own. I do have an issue with some peoples actions, but who am I to judge? I do have a problem when other people harm eachother, but I can't worry about what's beyond my control. I can only proof spirituality for myself - I can not proof spirtuality for you. You'd be surprised to know that not all religous minds think the text is the physical truth! The information supporting religions are not to be taken literally in the physical realm. We all find our own metephores shown to us in our creativity that lead us to a truth we know - many different metephores because we all have different perceptions and need to find our answer in our own unique way.
Do you actually read any of the links you post? The first is me actually saying that not yet having evidence is not evidence of lack, just evidence that no evidence has yet been found. The second is me saying that there is "no evidence" for what culture would be like without religion... hardly discrediting any supposed evidence for God. The third, again, is me saying that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, or words to the effect... and relates to objectivity / subjectivity - not God. And the fourth is me providing an explaination of why some atheists do not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn - due to "no evidence". Wow - yeah - you got me, LG, clearly refuting all the evidence you've thrown our way to support your claim of God. Your examples clearly show that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You do know that to discredit evidence of God, one (such as yourself) must first provide that evidence? Maybe when you get past that first hurdle we can move on. :shrug: This is not answering the question, as you are well aware. I'm not asking if one needs belief in order to press forward with the application but whether the application itself REQUIRES a belief in God. E.g. someone who does not believe an ice-cream vendor is outside might not wish to apply the "stand up and look outside" required to see if it actually is when someone else makes the claim. But they might wish to apply it anyway. In other words, at no point is the belief in the existence of the ice-cream vendor being outside a prerequisite to the necessary application. I hope now you see how you have not actually answered my question. So I will ask again:Is a belief in God a prerequisite for the application you are requiring of someone? Yes or no?
Well, there's your problem LG. Not one religious philosopher is better than the other. There is nothing to know and you all learn it equally well.
You see, with the proper breathing exercises, and meditation, combined with concentration, it becomes apparent that the emperor is indeed wearing clothing made of the finest fabrics. If the emperor appear nude to you plebes, that's only proof that you aren't capable of reaching the proper state to see the clothes.
I guess removing the issues of application is one way to bring everyone to the same platform ...... :crazy:
I don't know which is more of a cliche - your caricature of theistic processes or your sarcasm directed towards it.
and you can't see how all these are related to a claim of evidence of god? :shrug: The 1001 posts turned up in google are evidence of your pattern in dealing with the issue. I am trying for something different here by posing what is the value of presenting evidence to someone who doesn't have the means to either validate or invalidate it. Do you know that to discredit evidence requires qualification? Maybe if you could provide a suitable suggestion for why to bother presenting evidence to a person in no position to call a shot on it, things would progress. I find it difficult to answer since all issues of application incorporate an element of belief if a person doesn't believe there is a possibility of an ice cream vendor being outside (like for instance, suppose they were in a submarine on the ocean floor) they won't even begin applying themselves as far as I understand it, belief is a prerequisite for any issue of application so your question is meaningless. Perhaps you mean to guage what degree of belief, or the epistemological issues that might under-ride such a belief.
Related, sure (but then apples and some animals are related through being edible) - but unless you are prepared to actually detail the nature of the relationship, and how it relates to the claim you make against me, I'm afraid all you are left with is you whingeing. Ah, I see - you're attacking the perceived pattern without bothering to actually look at the detail. I would suggest rather than have issues with the "pattern in dealing with the issue" that you actually address the points raised. If you can. And that is why it is a logical fallacy and, harking back to a previous post: Please provide the evidence. But you won't understand it. Let us be the judge of that. But you won't understand it. Blah blah blah. And you are making assumptions - not only that I (and others) wish to discredit it rather than test it, but also that we lack the qualification to do so. All you have to do is provide the evidence. When you do so we will be able to establish whether we are qualified to test it or not. Even a physicist can provide the "psychedelic t-shirt". Have the decency to do likewise, please. Please provide the evidence. But you won't understand it. Let us be the judge of that. But you won't understand it. Blah blah blah. (Getting the picture yet?) No they don't. Regarding the ice-cream vendor example, one could apply themselves merely to humour the person making the claim. No belief necessary. Thus you are incorrect. So, I will ask again: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no. I am not interested in people who consider God an impossibility. I am not one of them and I never have been one. I am an agnostic atheist: I do not have the belief that God does not exist. So your example is moot. I believe there is a possibility (however large or small) - and I remain open to the idea should evidence be presented. So please, answer the question: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no. I have shown otherwise. Please now answer the question posed. No I don't mean to at all. I am asking you a rather straight-forward question. Please have the decency to answer it.
More stalling eh? I've no particular objection if I find it is relevant and I feel comfortable sharing it with a hostile and so far untrustworthy person. However since I've already met your first set of requirements lets see something from your side first.
Much as if god were just an empty concept. But I'm game. Cough up more than your empty claims please.
What is actual. You are mistaken. Actual spirituality is based on evidence. You should be careful confusing your psychological needs with spirituality. There can be overlaps, especially in those who tend to extremes and must draw on all their resources to survive their implosion phase. but no everyone is wound that way. I'm not concerned about it. I'm unconvinced.
While you seem quite enthusiastic, nothing you said seemed particularly true or actual. Instead it seemed to be mainly justifications for protecting certain emotional states from closer scrutiny.
If you advocate that there is nothing to apply, its kind of difficult to fathom your claim to be qualified .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
