Yes. That is what I am saying. Note that being born with a belief has nothing to do with it being true.
Being born with a belief? How does that work?. The truth is already known, because the truth is. Facts and information merely help us uncover what is. jan.
What I actually said was "born to look to a wiser authority." (To get pedantic: newborns, minutes old, who can't even focus yet are drawn to the mother's breast, and have a suckling instinct.) What I followed up with was the idea that whether or not we instinctively look for a wise authority figure (or why we might do so) has no bearing on there actually being one. No one can know truth. Not you, not any non-believer, not any believer. All humans are hamstrung by their mortal senses, thus all humans, even if they experience God talking to them personally, must acknowledge that their perceptions could be an illusion. No human can prove - even to themselves - that they are not a Brain in a Vat. They must take it on faith. So don't preach.
Disagree You can know , understand , the truth of Human history , ancient history , if you are willing to go down that path . I did and I am wiser for it . I found ideas can be our down fall But more importantly ideas can be Humanities to strength to survive any thing . Evil is non-sense. Evil serves only its self , god does the same . We kill for both , but we kill Humans . Human must never kill another Human , from this day on .
You have chosen to accept that as your truth. It is as easy for any man to say 'I saw a bright light. That is the truth.'
You really think that babes chomping on breasts to satisfy their hunger, is case of wisdom? And from there we develop a taste for the origin, meaning and purpose of life? How does that work? If it is instinctive, is it not intelligent to follow up, as it is not born out of your mind? But comes as part of the hard, and software package. If for you there is no evidence of God, but for a significant amount of others, there is evidence for God, doesn't it mean just that. God is accessible to some, and not others (for whatever reason? With that kind of reasoning, it is little wonder you're an atheist. I'll take it you accept that cookey statement as truth. You don't have to hear God talking to you, to believe in God. Secondly I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that I am not a brain in a vat. Fact. The option of possibly being a brain in a vat, is entirely yours. You need faith to accept that, because you have no source (other than nature) to link to. Where have I preached? Jan.
No I don't. If that's what I'd thought that's what I'd have said. No one said it was intelligent. Certainly not me. Evidence, sure. Truth? proof? No. Which is what the leap of faith is for. A leap of faith that the evidence is a representation of the reality. Precisely. I don't mistake belief for truth. If you mistake faith for truth it's no wonder you're theist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No. I accept it as logic. The difference is that logic acknowledges that the deductions are based by our limited senses and minds. The idea of thinking one can know the truth is to make the mistake of thinking one's senses and minds are not limited. But they are. This is demonstrable. I'm not suggesting you do. But you did use the word "believe". I have no quarrel with the idea that one can believe in God with whatever evidence is suitable. It was when the notion of truth was raised that the assertion became problematic. Not fact. The idea of a brain in a vat does not have to be literal. The simple fact is that neither you nor I nor anyone else has cornered the market on what the truth is. You sense God, you believe in it. That does not make it objectively real. It's what you feel. In your brain. Which is where you feel.
Then your metaphor/analogy makes no sense. I assume that is what you meant to say. So such a course of action is, for all intent and purpose, one that can most likely lead to delusion. Now there people who do delude themselves in such a way, but not everyone. I am concerned with those that don't. You made truth statement about no one can know truth. Don't you see a problem with that? So ''no one can know truth'' is simply your own concept then. That's okay. Only if it is true that one's senses and mind are limited. If that is the case, then you have already contradicted yourself, and your statement ''one cannot know truth'', is false. I said ''the truth is''. Truth is the foundation of knowing, and facts and information help us to recognise the truth if we are ready to receive it. I'm not sure why you see that as problematic. It is a fact. I'm not a brain in a vat, just as it is a fact that currently for you, God does not exist. In what way are you qualified to assess how I perceive God? jan.
You mangled my words. Of course it doesn't make sense in your words. From the moment of birth, humans instinctively search for sustenance from their mother. As they grow, this is abstracted first into a need for a caregiver and then into a desire for an authority figure. The need for an authority figure - even while an adult - can be a compelling carryover from our development - whether it is in our best inerst or not. You'd need the authority to be sufficiently abstract so as to be beyond fallibility, so you end up with a supernatural figure. That is my conjecture. It is a logical reason to form the world view of a supernatural authority, but it does not contribute to there actually being one. No. I was agreeing with you. It is not intelligent at all. It is the definition of irrational. The ones who are deluding themslves, in this scenario, are those who abstract their inner child's need for authority into its ulitmate form: a supernatural entity. But it's illusory. What does it mean to "make a truth statement"? The only statement I made was logical deduction based on known premises, to-wit: 1] We know (and all agree) that humans are flawed in the perceptions, thinknig and knoweldge. This is demonstrable. 2] It is not possible for any humans to "know the truth", since our perceptions could always be delusional. No. It is irrefutable. The only way you (or anyone) could claim to know truth - without requiring a leap of faith - is if you were superhuman - in fact, if you were God. Since anything lesser can be manipulated and deluded. One's senses and mind are limited. Or are you claiming to be superhuman? No. Logic is. And logic is based on axioms - explicitly stated assumptions. IF I were to believe my senses about reality... Prove it. False. I have never claimed God does not exist. It has never been my stance. It is enough that I know you are a sentient human. By definition, you are susceptible to sensual delusion. As am I. All we have is our logic, and our axioms.
Why does this authority need to be beyond fallibility, especially as we instinctively come to realise that people, including authority figures, are fallible? Actually I think you misread my post. I asked: is it not intelligent to follow up... So why is it the definition of irrational to follow up on a part of your nature? What about the ones who aren't deluding themselves? So if I state that it is entirely possible for humans to ''know the truth'' since while we can be delusional, we don't have to be. That could also be true from your perspective. If not, why not? Is this the truth? Is this true? Your senses come before acquiring logic. You come before logic. It is because of you with your senses, that you can make sense of logic. You comprehend the truth of logic. Right? Some people comprehend other truths. Do you agree? I don't need to. I know. You don't have to. Does God exist in your life as you read this post? That doesn't mean we are delusional. Does it? jan.
Agreed. It doesn't need to be. Priests and Kings are fallible authority figures. God is simply the logical ultimate projection. I'm sorry, I've lost who's saying what. My point is that projecting the caregiving/wisdom/authority from infancy into one's adulthood is instinctive, not rational. Those would be people who are capable of taking responsibility for their own (moral) behavior, and don't look to some higher authority. How would you know it's the truth? I could look out the window of a moving train and declare I am moving at 40mph. It might be true, but I have no way of verifying it using my own senses. Without that, my guess is as good as any other value. No, it is logical. Logic is how things are as far as we can determine within our flawed perception of reality. No, merely logical. Your senses merely provide data. There is no understanding without logic of cause/effect. Babies can sense, but they cannot understand until they have a library of cause/effect relationships. No. Logic is not truth. Logic is an internal set of rules applied internally (without our world defined by our flawed senses) It has axioms. It always starts with IF. IF creation had to have a first cause and IF that first cause must have been something outside nature, THEN God might make sense. See, if your argument simply that had that initial condition (or any other axioms of your choosing), you and I would be in perfect agreement on everything. You would proceed as if the axiom were true, I would proceed as if the axiom were false. We would be perfectly sympatico Neither of us know the truth. Both of us would acknowledge that neither of us know the answer to the initial premise and theref neither of us are wrong. No. And I have demonstrated that it is impossible for you to know truth. Unless you plan to declare you are superhuman and infallible i.e. a god. Are you? No. Your senses are flawed, like everyone else's; you only have your internal logic to interpret your senses. And from that you form axioms. I'm perfectly fine with your view of the universe as based on your stated axioms (assumptions).
Do you have any "logic" that explains How a concept of God could be conceptualised beyond nature and natural instincts (assuming you are correct)? Atheists, by any chance? The same way that I know I am typing this response. Why would you declare such a thing when you have the facilties to know better. You do know you wouldn't be moving at 40mph. Right? Is that the truth? How do you know that logic is what you accept it to be (going off your logic)? Understanding must precede logic. The library is the data, and we have to make sense of it. We just don't automatically understand because we have data. Do we? I think you're wrong about babies not being able to understand. It makes no sense if it's just a bunch of words. You must accept that it's true. If what you say is true, you have contradicted yourself. God makes sense. We may be wrong on things but it doesn't mean we don't know the truth. We may know the destination of a place, but make a wrong turn, and end up in the wrong place. We may have truthful instructions on how to make a gourmet dish, but not get the intended result. The underlying truth always remains, we may know the underlying truth but still get it wrong. Hence the old addage ''practice makes perfect''. I think you're mistaken. See above. That makes no sense. If the truth of a situation is present, it cannot be impossible for us to connect with it, otherwise the term 'truth' is nothing but a word. As we instinctively strive to know the truth, there must be a 'truth' for us to know. Plus, saying that you have provided a demonstration, is not the same as actually providing one. I however, have provided a couple of demonstrations of our relationship to the truth. Are you saying that the realm of ''truth'' is the property of gods, and supermen? What is the logical definition of truth? You can't know that for sure, yet you spout it as though it's true. Logic is based on the laws of logic (logical absolutes). Do you agree? Where are they to be found in nature? Why are you fine with it? jan.
A: My god is better than yours. B: Oh, no it isn't. Mine is better. A: Mine makes my crops grow and the rain to fall. What does yours do? B: Mine makes my crops grow, the rain to fall, and the winters not to be too harsh. A: Yeah, well, mine makes my crops grow, the rain to fall, the winters not to be too harsh, and gives us plenty of children. B: Yeah, really? Well, mine does all of that, and lots more. In fact my god gives everything to us. A: Well, yours may give everything to you but mine creates everything that your god then gives out to you. B: Everything? Well, if your god created everything then my God created yours - and is so powerful that nothing could create my God. A: Oh. Okay than. But then my god is really just a part of this God. B: Um. Yeah, okay. I guess so. Voila - a notion of how God can be conceptualised beyond nature and natural instincts. No magic required in reaching that conceptualisation either.
Er, no. That doesn't mean there isn't any, I'm just not sure to what you refer. Since we're talking about not deferring to God, yes. But it is not necessarily an exhaustive list. Your senses tell you. That is how you process the world - by direct detection. What senses directly detect God? Because, in that scenario, I have no access to data other than my eyes. Likewise, how can you verify that what you are experiencing is God. No. Logic is about establishing axioms - "if" statements - and then seeing what comes out of them. If what comes out of them does not result in any apparent contradictions with itself then we may be on to a set of good rules about how the world around works. A working model of what might be approaching truth. My axiom: If spades are always black, then we should never see red spades. It's logical. That does not make it true. Notice that I can tell you my axioms, with that very big IF, and you independently can come to the same conclusion. You too will conclude that "IF spades are always black, then there appear to be no red spades" is a pretty good rule about the world. You will examine decks of cards and find it a good rule. For the logic to hold, there is no need for either of us to have faith in any external confirmation of what colour spades actually always are. Which is good, because we cannot know, ever, that all spades are black. It is beyond our limited senses. It is a truth, to which we humans have no access. However, we can move ahead with the world, based on our axioms. Now substitute the words God for spades, and exists for black. This is why I would be OK with your stance - were you to acknowledge that is it based on the axiom.
My question: Do you have any "logic" that explains How a concept of God could be conceptualised beyond nature and natural instincts (assuming you are correct)? Where did A and B get the concept from? jan.
Many things folk take as truth just because there is a half baked appeal to logic. And if we think logic is with us well we determine that we have found the truth. We have all heard "no two snow flakes are the same (as in shape)" and everyone nods happily and takes that logic as truth and yet the truth is no one has ever looked at all the snowflakes and made any comparison.... Now logic kicks in again and having heard my observation we find a better truth. Alex
I guess part of the reason I am unable to answer this is because I don't know what "beyond nature" means. Well, I mean, I guess I do - it means supernatural, which is where God is said to exist anyway, so yeah. I guess I can. It is human nature to fear the unseen. The supernatural is the ultimate unseen - it can't be detected by any objective means - so it would be a perfect place for things to hide that oughtn't be examined. If one were going to fear a dragon, an invisible one would be ideal. Further: anyting that can be objectively detected can ultimately have its secrets unraveled. So after enough of that, the only things left in the "still mysterious" pile will be those things that can never be objectively detected.
You said "God is simply the logical ultimate projection." How is that possible given that God is beyond nature, and therefore, natural instincts? My senses interact with the world. Mind, and intelligence comprehend God, just as they do with logic. So you are devoid of mind and intelligence? Mind and intelligence. According to Wikipedia, it is the study of argument. But I don't wish to quibble over something that is irrelevant to this discussion. IMO. A complete waste of thinking time, IMO. It is exactly true, if it were the case. Truth overrides logic everytime. Logic is Truth's butch. And what exactly have you learned from you example. Nothing. You already know that spades aren't always black. You have superseded logic by using your mind and intelligence. And logic is only available to you because of your mind and intelligence. Don't forget that no-one gives a sh*t. I don't think it works like that. What is your own personal definition of God? Jan.
