If you've never encountered a narrative supported by physics about how the universe was created it seems you have never encountered physics
:shrug:
or alternatively you're simply playing yet another game of semantics
Two questions
- Thread starter jpappl
- Start date
:shrug:
Jan, Adstar, LG and Fiicere,
How funny you all claim your religious texts are the words of god and then seek to distance yourself from it as a basis for your belief, Adstar being somewhat of the exception.
It's a constant issue I have with those who claim a belief in god. The text's are rife with errors from what we have come to understand as reality, knowing this it is best not to put to much weight on the text because god is a much harder target.
No one can prove god does not exist, but we know the texts are full of nonsense which would never have occurred if they were the true words of a god or gods.
So to believe in god is one thing, to believe the texts are the words of god is quite another.
Yet I am hearing that the belief in the texts as the words of god is absolute. So what gives ? Is it not enough to stand by.
How funny you all claim your religious texts are the words of god and then seek to distance yourself from it as a basis for your belief, Adstar being somewhat of the exception.
It's a constant issue I have with those who claim a belief in god. The text's are rife with errors from what we have come to understand as reality, knowing this it is best not to put to much weight on the text because god is a much harder target.
No one can prove god does not exist, but we know the texts are full of nonsense which would never have occurred if they were the true words of a god or gods.
So to believe in god is one thing, to believe the texts are the words of god is quite another.
Yet I am hearing that the belief in the texts as the words of god is absolute. So what gives ? Is it not enough to stand by.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheists apparently have no common sense, according to Jan. Nice..
If something is still a work in progress, its not clear how you relegate something else to the arena of merely being a "work" ..... unless of course one is wholeheartedly subscribing to the narrative that supports the former (firm conclusions from a work in progress
????)Don't confuse human ego with the ego of god.
If one insists on using humanity as a yard stick for determining the capabilities of an omni-creator, of course one will have a good argument for atheism
hence its not clear why your relying on the narrative they provide makes you distinct from the apparent shallowness of those subscribing to a different narrative.
I didn't talk anything of distancing.
I talked of how there are another two agencies that also act as a basis (namely practitioners and the historical continuum they appear in)
If you admit your reality is still a work in progress, its not clear why you deem it necessary that all issues comply to it.
Interesting.
The only way you could know this statement to be true is if you are omniscient.
Okay
You have a conclusion for an argument.
All you need now are a few premises and we can begin discussion.
and?
regardless of what discipline of knowledge is being discussed, the texts that surround it require an element of quality of the performer.
This is but one issue that surrounds the beginning any inquiry into text critical issues
“ Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
Common sense forms the basis of my belief in God. ”
Atheists are uncommon in, at least some areas of, their thinking.
I have uncommon sense & am glad to be far from the madding crowd.
Common sense forms the basis of my belief in God. ”
Atheists are uncommon in, at least some areas of, their thinking.
I have uncommon sense & am glad to be far from the madding crowd.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ah no, common sense is a positive thing.
yes to all.
LG,
Of course it's a work in progress. Otherwise we would be claiming an end to the discovery. That we would know all and there would be no need to ask any more questions.
Which is what you and other theist's who believe the texts are the word of god, no more questions, we have all the answers right here.
What. Ok, go ahead and prove god does not exist, prove anything does not exist.
Nope, just trying the pieces together. If you base your belief on the text, and the text is rife with errors, if it is supposed to be the word of god then the belief is an error.
This is where yo always go LG, if only one would open his mind and take a deep look into the meaning of the texts they would see the light.
Yet, those who have accepted the texts as gods word are unwilling to question the errors compared to the known reality.
Of course it's a work in progress. Otherwise we would be claiming an end to the discovery. That we would know all and there would be no need to ask any more questions.
Which is what you and other theist's who believe the texts are the word of god, no more questions, we have all the answers right here.
What. Ok, go ahead and prove god does not exist, prove anything does not exist.
Nope, just trying the pieces together. If you base your belief on the text, and the text is rife with errors, if it is supposed to be the word of god then the belief is an error.
This is where yo always go LG, if only one would open his mind and take a deep look into the meaning of the texts they would see the light.
Yet, those who have accepted the texts as gods word are unwilling to question the errors compared to the known reality.
LG,
First of all, the narrative is a work in progress, it's about questions and the search for the answers, not having all the answers.
The separation is those in search for the truth and those claiming to have the truth.
I don't have issues with those who believe in god or gods, I do have issues with those who claim to know exactly how it all started, whether they are theist or atheist.
Theist's texts are final, they claim to have the answers and they are full of errors, so they fail.
First of all, the narrative is a work in progress, it's about questions and the search for the answers, not having all the answers.
The separation is those in search for the truth and those claiming to have the truth.
I don't have issues with those who believe in god or gods, I do have issues with those who claim to know exactly how it all started, whether they are theist or atheist.
Theist's texts are final, they claim to have the answers and they are full of errors, so they fail.
I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem is when you lend yourself to "truths" such as "No one can know god" etc etc.
Clearly you have other issues at work in your system when you start subscribing to one (general) narrative as a means for rejecting a different (general) narrative.
basically any narrative one chooses has an element of finality to it. If it wasn't the case, you wouldn't be trying to discredit theism on the strength of science.
:shrug:
Well correct me if I am wrong. But I don't believe I have ever said no one can "know" god, I have said no one can prove there is a god.
The problem with the know god part is that if you claim to know god then you are claiming something that should be considered knowledge and that should be proveable. If you study your religious texts and find meaning you could say that by doing so you are trying to know god or gods meanings.
If you believe that it will take you to that type of understanding.
Well that is why I focus on the errors in the texts. One system allows for movement and changes as newer truths present themselves, that is something that I can respect.
The other does not allow for these changes because it claims to be final. No more questions we have the answers.
I don't subscribe to any one narrative. I don't think anyone has the answers for some of these questions and may not if ever, certainly not in my lifetime.
No, I disagree. It is the very foundation of science to keep looking and moving with the truth. Some scientists might not like that some whipper snapper has come up with an idea that challenges the long held belief, but science isn't about the scientists. It will change with the truth.
Facts can be stubborn I know.
Jppapl
I can't your answer to that in your response.
(BTW my view is that empiricism and theistic models answer different questions - calling upon empiricism to validate a theistic claim is just like calling upon scripture to defrag your hard drive ... that said though, I think one can still apply an epistemological hierarchy that places the discipline of theism in a more esteemed position since it is dealing with broader issues)
“ but we know the texts are full of nonsense which would never have occurred if they were the true words of a god or gods.
Otherwise one could borrow the same head space to make the claim that all astronomy is rife with error based on an investigation of heliocentricism and epicycles.
:shrug:
I guess you could interpret examining the practitioner and the historical continuum they fall in, as being a "deeper" investigation of the subject.
I also guess it depends whether one is satisfied with a shallow investigation of a subject. (which is usually the case when someone is already running with a narrative they subscribe to).
Once again,
If you admit your reality is still a work in progress, its not clear why you deem it necessary that all issues comply to it.
I asked why you deem it necessary that all issues comply to a narrative that (by definition has no means to be anything more than ) is a work in progress.
I can't your answer to that in your response.
(BTW my view is that empiricism and theistic models answer different questions - calling upon empiricism to validate a theistic claim is just like calling upon scripture to defrag your hard drive ... that said though, I think one can still apply an epistemological hierarchy that places the discipline of theism in a more esteemed position since it is dealing with broader issues)
Actually I messed that up and meant to tag it with your (knowledge based) claim
“ but we know the texts are full of nonsense which would never have occurred if they were the true words of a god or gods.
hence the value in having the text backed up by practical application and the historical continuum it falls in.
Otherwise one could borrow the same head space to make the claim that all astronomy is rife with error based on an investigation of heliocentricism and epicycles.
:shrug:
Actually its the way that all knowledge based claims go (whether it be astronomy or theism).
I guess you could interpret examining the practitioner and the historical continuum they fall in, as being a "deeper" investigation of the subject.
I also guess it depends whether one is satisfied with a shallow investigation of a subject. (which is usually the case when someone is already running with a narrative they subscribe to).
Once again you have made the blunder of using words to the effect in italics on the strength of a narrative that you admit can never (by its constitution) be anything more than a work in progress.
Once again,
If you admit your reality is still a work in progress, its not clear why you deem it necessary that all issues comply to it.
jpappl
Epistemologically speaking, proof relies on a means. So for instance, there is a good reason why you can prove the temperature with a thermometer and not a tape measure.
(At the risk of cutting to car chase, I think this boils down to the issue whether empiricism has the monopoly on all knowable claims)
It is followed by application and conclusion (both of which are equally susceptible to error
The moment you label something an "error" you are already subscribing to a narrative
This is why god is a problem for the materialistic savant since He flatly admits His unavailability to those engaged in illusory pursuits.
Hence its not the stubbornness of the facts, per se, but the institutions that support them that makes for it.
(assuming that you don't have a problem with the issue of knowing god) What is it that prevents a person who knows god from proving it?
Epistemologically speaking, proof relies on a means. So for instance, there is a good reason why you can prove the temperature with a thermometer and not a tape measure.
(At the risk of cutting to car chase, I think this boils down to the issue whether empiricism has the monopoly on all knowable claims)
I agree
theory is but one part of proof.
It is followed by application and conclusion (both of which are equally susceptible to error
If one believes that the texts that surround physics will lead to an understanding of physics, they also have a means and a way.
You miss the point.
The moment you label something an "error" you are already subscribing to a narrative
So you think that empiricism has no pending issues of finality?
Once again, if you weren't subscribing to a narrative, you would have no means to label something an error.
The fact that words like "truth" are irreconcilable with phrases like "work in progress" is why many involved in the philosophy that surrounds science (eg Karl Popper) don't recommend heading in that direction ....
empiricism is all about falsification of theories.
This is why god is a problem for the materialistic savant since He flatly admits His unavailability to those engaged in illusory pursuits.
"fact", like "truth", is one of those words in science that in practical usage is closer to "suggestion" or "might be".
Hence its not the stubbornness of the facts, per se, but the institutions that support them that makes for it.
Actually I am asking why you deem that all issues comply to a work in progress (since a work in progress, by definition, doesn't have an element of finality to it)
Actually I am trying to get the low down on why you deem something an "error" since moving on to text critical issues before that would be a waste of time.
I think it is safe to say that:
no human
can prove
at just anytime
to just anyone
with just any means
that there is a God.
Which is not the same as saying "no one can prove there is a god".
Do you think there is something wrong with that? That it is a kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and therefore to be dismissed?