not to agree to your claims on their religious texts, but mine certainly doesn't fit your accusation, but fits the description as a religious text, so you should be more specific in the future with your claims..
Two questions
- Thread starter jpappl
- Start date
not to agree to your claims on their religious texts, but mine certainly doesn't fit your accusation, but fits the description as a religious text, so you should be more specific in the future with your claims..
Because the point of a self fulfilling/denying prophecy is that it is acting in concordance with the prophecy that is what results in its fulfillment. By stepping off the train, you again have choices for other destinations.
Basically, you are saying that the solution to SFP is to not think about the consequences of one's actions, and to not have any goals?
No. You can have goals and consider consequences as long as they are ones other than the S F/D P you are trying to avoid. It is specifically the interaction with that particular "prophecy" which brings about that result.
Think of it interms of being a feedback loop. To break the loop you just have to stop putting more energy in.
Ok.
You believe in dinosaurs. Right.
You believe in evolution. Right.
You believe the world, all the plants and animals and humans were created in 6 days and that is the word of god. Right.
I guess if you want to theorize about the theory of the big bang being merely a secondary creation you can bake your cake and eat it.Funny, I would say any narrative which pretends the universe was created is definitely not physics.
:shrug:
:shrug:
the same limits that surround any epistemological claim of knowledge - namely the third party who demands to be privy to the proof while simultaneously refraining from making the grade that actually enables it.
:shrug:
kind of spot on
the road to impersonalism is paved with hurt
being proud about a moment of clarity may head in the direction of a paradox but its certainly heads and shoulders above being proud of a moment of opacity(I feel quite proud now!
Jppapl
What I don't see is why you hold that all issues comply to a work in progress.
IOW if you admit that a system doesn't have all the answers, why do you demand that all answers comply to it?
IOW its not clear why you make the claim "theists are referencing things they don't know" on the authority of a paradigm that is constitutionally in a perpetual state of incompleteness?
I can see this.
What I don't see is why you hold that all issues comply to a work in progress.
IOW if you admit that a system doesn't have all the answers, why do you demand that all answers comply to it?
IOW its not clear why you make the claim "theists are referencing things they don't know" on the authority of a paradigm that is constitutionally in a perpetual state of incompleteness?
LG,
Well I already said so, because we don't have all the answers. But we do have some answers. So I don't hold that ALL issues comply to a work in progress. But certainly, where it all started and how we came to be EXACTLY is a work in progress.
The system doesn't have all the answers to everything. I don't demand that all answers comply to it because it can't answer everything. Nor does any religious text.
For example, why did my neighbors son have to be killed by a hit and run driver ?
This is however different than, how did humans come to occupy the earth ?
One has no answer, the other is knowledge that hopefully can be obtained. To make crap up is unnacceptable.
And we are back to if we don't have all the answers now we need to make some up like we making a batch of brownies.
The answer. To belong to reality and not be delusional about what we think we know.
Well I already said so, because we don't have all the answers. But we do have some answers. So I don't hold that ALL issues comply to a work in progress. But certainly, where it all started and how we came to be EXACTLY is a work in progress.
The system doesn't have all the answers to everything. I don't demand that all answers comply to it because it can't answer everything. Nor does any religious text.
For example, why did my neighbors son have to be killed by a hit and run driver ?
This is however different than, how did humans come to occupy the earth ?
One has no answer, the other is knowledge that hopefully can be obtained. To make crap up is unnacceptable.
And we are back to if we don't have all the answers now we need to make some up like we making a batch of brownies.
The answer. To belong to reality and not be delusional about what we think we know.
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
What prevents you from proving it? ”
I must believe it so you can prove it?
What prevents you from proving it? ”
I must believe it so you can prove it?
no
If you insist on anything being proven too you, you are required to come to fulfill the epistemological requirements that surround the claim.
Its too bad you can't say that clearly, but "big bang" doesn't involve any creation. All the matter and energy expelled was already there to begin with.
:shrug:
IOW: Focus on things you believe you can control or believe are your creations; or lower your goals and expectations.
Epicureanism.
And then wonder whether to choose opera mauve or mauve toupe as the color of the background on your webpage dedicated to melon wedgers.
I think that with such a degree of strictness, we'd have to go to point zero and say we actually know nothing until we know everything.
Acknowledging that we don't know everything sets us up for having to also acknowledge that some knowledge that we might gain later could disprove or re-contextualize the knowledge we might have now.
And bottomline, that we can't really say or know anything with any certainty until we are enlightened. Which is a scary proposition.
Note please that I am not arguing against you, not yet.
I think it is an interesting, and sometimes heavy problem of epistemology, honesty, honor and interpersonal relationships, and probably more, that comes with what you are pointing at.
On the grounds of what is a person really entitled to say something?
On the grounds of what should a person's words be taken seriously, or rejected?
On the grounds of what should a person's thinking or saying something be sanctioned by other people?
I think that we can agree that human communication is usually not entirely triflesome; but also, that it is not entirely dead-serious either. Something is always at stake when humans communicate.
What is it that is at stake when humans communicate?
Signal,
This is not what I am suggesting. We know if we have an apple in our hand.
We don't know what happens to us after we die.
Again, we can know things, lots of things. But what I am suggesting is that when we don't know. We shouldn't make up answers, we should keep looking for the answers until we have knowledge. If knowledge of that something continues to ellude us, we shouldn't just delude ourselves into believing we know.
We may have a belief about the reality, but we shouldn't make claims of knowledge.
I understand. And I would suggest that it depends on the subject and the evidence available to make the claim.
This is not what I am suggesting. We know if we have an apple in our hand.
We don't know what happens to us after we die.
Again, we can know things, lots of things. But what I am suggesting is that when we don't know. We shouldn't make up answers, we should keep looking for the answers until we have knowledge. If knowledge of that something continues to ellude us, we shouldn't just delude ourselves into believing we know.
We may have a belief about the reality, but we shouldn't make claims of knowledge.
I understand. And I would suggest that it depends on the subject and the evidence available to make the claim.
Yes, a work in progress, which is what we are in.
With new discoveries we adjust our thinking and our understanding because that is reality.
If you reverse this and look at religious texts. It is closed it is not a work in progress, it is final, and thus should be able to explain everything and everything precisely. And yet we find that is not the case, thus they are all nonsense and not the word of god or gods.
Someone who doesn't speak Spanish, for example, or has never eaten kanut, does not know what it is like to speak Spanish or what kamut tastes like. But that doesn't mean that nobody knows what speaking Spanish is like or what kamut tastes like.
I do think it is possible that some people know what happens to us when we die.
Furthermore, suppose you are aware of some theoretical ideas from various sources about what happens to us when we die - including annihilation, reincarnation, moving up to a higher plane of existence ...
Suppose you then die. You get to see for yourself what happens. You can then assess for yourself whether any of the theoretical ideas you had before were correct. Suppose there was one that was correct.
From this perspective, can you say that prior to death, you did not know what will happen to you after you die?
The basic requirements for sound epistemology are 1. know that something is true and 2. know why it is true and why we know that it is true.
Even a child can fulfill the first requirement. The second one, I am afraid is beyond the reach of a human, as I think it would require omnipotence.
What exactly would count for "making up answers"?
Certainly.
I think we need to distinguish between a philosophical discussion about a topic and casual, everyday communication.
For the purposes of philosophical discussion, we may make claims or assessments which from the perspective of everyday communication would be outrageous.
But how else are we supposed to reason about something?
If we keep merely to topics that we are certain about, we do not get very far, and life's problem remain elusive and big to us.
But here's the psychological momentum: If you believe that all you have are mere beliefs, mere opinions, and not sound, solid knowledge, chances are that life is going to be packed with uncertainty, and thus very very difficult.
Agnosticism is nice enough in theory, but in practice, it is a nightmare.