There flat-out is no god.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

As far as I am concerned, the theory of a greater intelligence is just that, a theory, and is equal to the theory of the big bang if not MORE plausible since the big bang requres something out of nothing.

I don't find something out of nothing stranger than that something always existed.

Both of those sound strange to me.

Aren't they both rather amazing theories to you?

I mean even if you believe one is true and other isn't, still, don't they both strike one with wonder.

 

[Norsefire]

I don't find something out of nothing stranger than that something always existed.

Both of those sound strange to me.

Aren't they both rather amazing theories to you?

I mean even if you believe one is true and other isn't, still, don't they both strike one with wonder.

I accept that I do not know, however BOTH of them are theories for the moment, and frankly the only way anyone can find out if there is a higher being is to die. Don't you believe there is something beyond Humanity, beyond what we can sense, beyond what we can comprehend?

The concept of God becomes ridiculous once you start applying all of these wild imaginings and specifications, BUT THE CORE CONCEPT is very plausible in my opinion, that there is a higher being and ultimately an intelligent entity which could have played some role, either directly or indirectly, in the creation of our universe

 

[Norsefire]

Besides, you could say an atheist is one who does not believe in God (lack of belief), but therefore, logically someone who doesn't believe in God believes there is no God. If I didn't believe in the color blue, I would believe Blue does not exist.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Call it a habit if you must.

The devil must.

Kant called it an a priori synthetic

. An assumption by any other name, even one in latin - see all the plant names - still smells, well, the way it smells or doesn't. [/QUOTE]

Regardless, for a single mind to operate in this material world, as we experience it, the subject/object distinction occurs.

Sure, but many of our perceptions 'occur' and yet turn out not to be true.

Ergo, my good friend Ockham does not apply: the rule is to not multiply entities unnecessarily.

depends on the context. If were are teaching therapists to talk to clients - as one example amongst many - sure, with you 100%. But in a philosophy forum...that is a different can of beans and unnecessarily gets stricter.

And what is there besides what "seem"s??
Are you by chance assuming an objective ontological reality??

No, not at all. I am happy to take back that word. As long as the subjective objective split is no longer seen as objective, which it seems you are saying it is.

As above, there is no illusion.
If you choose to call this illusory, then you must continue with your application of our inability to discriminate. That being the case, the logical end to this maneuver is that everything is illusory.

Nows are real and all the experience in them.

You then of course end up in a nasty solipsism, which would be fine, with the exception that the very analysis that you made use of to get to that point itself cannot be validated........

Always trying to get the onus on me.

Incorrect. You never sleep??
All experience is fractured, even 18th Century philosophers like Hume knew this. The fact that our experience is not continuous is exactly what was the ultimate failure of Empiricism.

There is no break in the now. If you experience yourself sleeping that is another now. If you don't there is no now. But the split or fracture I meant was in the moment not between moments. The subject object split.

"Faith analyzed" is a contradiction.

I dunno. Seems like we can see what the word means. I think people confuse faith and intuition. I think one can analyze the word use and see if there is a problem.

Which distinction is that??

A sailor looks at the sea and senses a storm coming. He does not have a conscious formula and he is right much more than random. Experts in many fields have similar intuitions and pattern recognitions. One can argue that 'really' this is some sort of inductive/deductive processing in the unconscious. Fine. I don't think we really know, nor for the purposes of this discussion does it really matter. The main thing is, often experts, who can predict better than chance consistantly do not know how they know. This, of course, plays a role in science where some scientists regularly 'know' where to look. Other good scientists do not but slog through wrong turnings until they hit right ones.

I think this mode of knowing is one that scientists and rationalists want to down play because it seems to open doors to things like faith - or to put it another way, the have a fear of losing control.

Still it is there. And we really do not know whether some people who believe in _______________ (this or that 'supernatural' entity have not simply recognized a pattern, an obviousness.)

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I accept that I do not know, however BOTH of them are theories for the moment, and frankly the only way anyone can find out if there is a higher being is to die. Don't you believe there is something beyond Humanity, beyond what we can sense, beyond what we can comprehend?

1) many people say you do not need to wait until you die
2) I am not an atheist.

The concept of God becomes ridiculous once you start applying all of these wild imaginings and specifications, BUT THE CORE CONCEPT is very plausible in my opinion, that there is a higher being and ultimately an intelligent entity which could have played some role, either directly or indirectly, in the creation of our universe

Or is the universe.

 

[Norsefire]

1) many people say you do not need to wait until you die
2) I am not an atheist.



Or is the universe.

1) Then if so, how can they decide before-hand of matters they are PHYSICALLY limited from experiencing/perceiving/ being aware of?


A possibility; in the end, I believe existence has more to it than just "it's there"

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Then if so, how can they decide before-hand of matters they are PHYSICALLY limited from experiencing/perceiving/ being aware of?

You cannot know this. You are also placing a limitation on God.

A possibility; in the end, I believe existence has more to it than just "it's there"

Me too, though I suspect there is an element of this.

 

[glaucon]

An assumption by any other name, even one in latin - see all the plant names - still smells, well, the way it smells or doesn't.

You miss the distinction entirely.
Ultimately, all our knowledge is an assumption. Some of these are weaker than others.

Sure, but many of our perceptions 'occur' and yet turn out not to be true.

'Truth' has nothing to do with it.
Again you introduce new and unnecessary entities...

...
But in a philosophy forum...that is a different can of beans and unnecessarily gets stricter.

Exactly. And as I've pointed out, this move is necessary.

As long as the subjective objective split is no longer seen as objective, which it seems you are saying it is.

I'm not.
There is no such thing as objective (in the strict ontological sense).
There are however, notions which we can construe as decidedly public.

Nows are real and all the experience in them.

And I say, "now" cannot exist.

Always trying to get the onus on me.

All I'm pointing out is that if you follow this line of thought, that's where you end up.

There is no break in the now. If you experience yourself sleeping that is another now. If you don't there is no now. But the split or fracture I meant was in the moment not between moments. The subject object split.

I have no idea what this means...

I dunno. Seems like we can see what the word means. I think people confuse faith and intuition. I think one can analyze the word use and see if there is a problem.

Semantically, it's clear: faith is a position of acceptance which bears no condition.

I think this mode of knowing is one that scientists and rationalists want to down play because it seems to open doors to things like faith - or to put it another way, the have a fear of losing control.

Still it is there. ...

Ah, I see what you're referring to now.

For myself, I don't buy the 'intuition' notion.
Of course, the workings of the brain are poorly understood at best, but I would argue that, like dreams, these 'intuitions' are a manifestation of non-conscious brain activity. In that sense then, these are nothing beyond the ordinary functioning of the mind.

But that's another discussion entirely...

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

You miss the distinction entirely.
Ultimately, all our knowledge is an assumption. Some of these are weaker than others.

Is that last sentence objectively true?
How would you know it?

'Truth' has nothing to do with it.
Again you introduce new and unnecessary entities...

Is it better to have it implicit?

Exactly. And as I've pointed out, this move is necessary.

Not in a philosophical discussion.

I'm not.
There is no such thing as objective (in the strict ontological sense).
There are however, notions which we can construe as decidedly public.

So you are saying that the subject objects split theory is popular. I can live with that.

And I say, "now" cannot exist.

Go on, don't just flirt.

I have no idea what this means...

I meant there is no break between subject and object. You shifted to breaks over time.

Ah, I see what you're referring to now.

For myself, I don't buy the 'intuition' notion.
Of course, the workings of the brain are poorly understood at best, but I would argue that, like dreams, these 'intuitions' are a manifestation of non-conscious brain activity. In that sense then, these are nothing beyond the ordinary functioning of the mind.

That's a hypothesis. And I agree with it. On the other hand I don't think that it so easy to determine what is faith and what is spot on intuition either in ourselves or in others.

There is a line rationalists draw in the sand. Beyond this line, they say, we cannot trust intuition. The placement of that line is intuitive.

But that's another discussion entirely...

But relevent.

 

[glaucon]

Is that last sentence objectively true?
How would you know it?

??

As I've already pointed out, within this context, there is no "objectively true"
The only things that can be said to be true are those things that have been verified according to a particular system that obtains. 'Truth' is a function of verification, having nothing to do with some sort of 'reality'...

Is it better to have it implicit?

??
I made no assertion that explicit or implicit has any relevance.
The point is that you are making comparisons and analyses based upon an assumption (implicit) of objective ontological reality.

Not in a philosophical discussion.

Again you miss my point.
I'm stating that I'm not multiplying entities unnecessarily.

So you are saying that the subject objects split theory is popular. I can live with that.

Not exactly, but close.
I'm saying that we can distinguish (and do) between those notions that are private and those which are shared.

Go on, don't just flirt.

lol

"Now" is a term that refers to no thing.
It is a term of convenience, used to organize our thoughts, nothing more.

I meant there is no break between subject and object. You shifted to breaks over time.

I brought it up because you made use of the term "now", which always has strict temporal implications.
Following from above, time is illusory.

That's a hypothesis. And I agree with it. On the other hand I don't think that it so easy to determine what is faith and what is spot on intuition either in ourselves or in others.

There is a line rationalists draw in the sand. Beyond this line, they say, we cannot trust intuition. The placement of that line is intuitive.

Ahh, but the Rationalist analysis is entirely contingent upon some crux a priori.
I say that this line is drawn simply as a result of our language, and our lack of understanding (so far).

But relevent.

Indeed.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

??As I've already pointed out, within this context, there is no "objectively true"
The only things that can be said to be true are those things that have been verified according to a particular system that obtains. 'Truth' is a function of verification, having nothing to do with some sort of 'reality'...

So how should I take it when you make flat assertions. I am not sure what you mean when you make unqualified statements.

??
I made no assertion that explicit or implicit has any relevance.
The point is that you are making comparisons and analyses based upon an assumption (implicit) of objective ontological reality.

When you say something like
Ultimately all our knowledge is an assumption. Some of these are weaker than others.
it really sounds like you are making objective claims.
That is what I meant by implicit. It seemed implicit that you are stating things about objective reality when you talk about all our knowledge AND, FURTHER go on to say that some (of the assumptions I assumed) were weaker than others.
You can see at least how that sounds like objective speak.

Again you miss my point.
I'm stating that I'm not multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Yes, and I am disagreeing. There is simply experience, a phenomenologically bracketed off something (the only thing) that actually has no need to be bracketed because its all there is. When you want to divide it up into subject and object, not only does this sound like an objective claim - which oddly you seem to see only me as making in this discussion - but it create more entities.

Not exactly, but close.
I'm saying that we can distinguish (and do) between those notions that are private and those which are shared.

But there are people who share notions and experiences that you do not share. I do not think this is so simple.

lol

"Now" is a term that refers to no thing.
It is a term of convenience, used to organize our thoughts, nothing more.

Like subject and object? (he says hopefully)

I brought it up because you made use of the term "now", which always has strict temporal implications.
Following from above, time is illusory.

Is this a notion that is publically shared?

Ahh, but the Rationalist analysis is entirely contingent upon some crux a priori.
I say that this line is drawn simply as a result of our language, and our lack of understanding (so far).

I am not sure that most rationalists are aware how much they use intuition. You seem to be aware of this, though perhaps you will quibble about my choice to call it intuition.

 

[glaucon]

So how should I take it when you make flat assertions. I am not sure what you mean when you make unqualified statements.

I've made no unqualified statements.
I'm arguing from a position where objective ontology does not obtain.
If you disagree with this, then it is up to you to overcome the legacy of empiricism. How can we be sure of anything?

When you say something like
Ultimately all our knowledge is an assumption. Some of these are weaker than others.
it really sounds like you are making objective claims.
That is what I meant by implicit.
...
You can see at least how that sounds like objective speak.

I cannot. I've already stated numerous times that I'm not operating from a position that includes an objective ontology. This doesn't mean that we cannot establish practices that operate such that there is such a thing existent; the Scientific Method is a classic example.

Yes, and I am disagreeing. There is simply experience, a phenomenologically bracketed off something (the only thing) that actually has no need to be bracketed because its all there is.

Then you're misusing language.
Experience, by definition, cannot be such without a subject to partake of it.

But there are people who share notions and experiences that you do not share. I do not think this is so simple.

Exactly. And it is.
The very nature of public entities is such that they are elective. It is only through language that we can measure them.

Like subject and object? (he says hopefully)

From the point of view of one subject? Then I say yes.
However, this may not be the case for any other subject.

What I'm getting at is that our private notions are (to us) 'given', and it is strictly in comparison to those that we define public notions. So, in and of themself, public notions have no meaning beyond their definition.

Is this a notion that is publically shared?

Time you mean?

If so, then I say yes.

I am not sure that most rationalists are aware how much they use intuition. You seem to be aware of this, though perhaps you will quibble about my choice to call it intuition.

No quibbling here, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Classically, 'intuition' is the primary means by which a Rationalist structures their thoughts, a la Descartes.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I've made no unqualified statements.

Ultimately all our knowledge is an assumption.

You are making claims, for example, about my knowledge. In addition to everyone else in the world. I cannot imagine how this is not an objective, unqualified statement. I can see saying that your are being deductive so it is OK. But to be deductive you must be sure that you assumptions about all of us are correct. Again objectivity. If you don't agree with this, which it seems you don't, then one of us is very confused. I, of course, think it is you.

I cannot. I've already stated numerous times that I'm not operating from a position that includes an objective ontology. This doesn't mean that we cannot establish practices that operate such that there is such a thing existent; the Scientific Method is a classic example.

Ah, the tentative posited world and all its tentatively posited details. I actually don't think anyone actually believes in this way, but I understand it is a good number of people's official position about how they believe.

Then you're misusing language.
Experience, by definition, cannot be such without a subject to partake of it.

A definition based on positing extra entities. But here we are going in circles.

Exactly. And it is.
The very nature of public entities is such that they are elective. It is only through language that we can measure them.

I am getting a sense that we use language quite differently. I think we (my Devil's Advocate and you) disagree, but through a fog. I can tell you are more of a pro with philosophical language, so...well, that makes it more embarassing for me. Of course this is like bowing to certain language use as more objective, but I have cultural habits just like the rest.

No quibbling here, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Classically, 'intuition' is the primary means by which a Rationalist structures their thoughts, a la Descartes.

Oh, I must save this quote. I must warn you I will pop it into discussion with other rationalists. (by the way I am not using 'rationalist' in the way it is used by at least some historians of philosophy. I suspect that neither are you.)

 

[glaucon]

You are making claims, for example, about my knowledge. In addition to everyone else in the world. I cannot imagine how this is not an objective, unqualified statement. I can see saying that your are being deductive so it is OK. But to be deductive you must be sure that you assumptions about all of us are correct. Again objectivity. If you don't agree with this, which it seems you don't, then one of us is very confused. I, of course, think it is you.

At best, I'm making assumptions concerning the content of your knowledge, no more than that. Unless you can establish that we know anything with certainty, then you are forced to admit that my position is correct, and 'objectivity' gets tossed out the window.

Ah, the tentative posited world and all its tentatively posited details. I actually don't think anyone actually believes in this way, but I understand it is a good number of people's official position.

It's not posited so much as pragmatically granted. It's certainly more rational than an unverifiable position. Functionally, we may very well behave in such a way that we believe in an objective reality, but this is as far as it goes (logically speaking).

A definition based on positing extra entities. But here we are going in circles.

Incorrect.
A definition based upon our linguistic rule structure.

I am getting a sense that we use language quite differently.
... Of course this is like bowing to certain language use as more objective, but I have cultural habits just like the rest.

I suspect you're right.
Unfortunately, it's often the case that words like "objective" are easily misinterpreted simply because they have moved into common parlance, and thereby have been given varying connotations.

Oh, I must save this quote. I must warn you I will pop it into discussion with other rationalists. (by the way I am not using 'rationalist' in the way it is used by at least some historians of philosophy. I suspect that neither are you.

Similar to above.
In philosophical circles "Rationalist" refers to a specific epistemological approach, and always more than simply a reference to an analytical type of mindset (as I suspect you're well aware..).