You always talk about research and you never do it. Google is there for you, you just need to type: Deepak chopra fraud or Ian Stevenson fraud.
Yes I think we know how you find your "answers" to religious questions Astargath. You might run into problems, however, if your source of wisdom ever fails to deliver. What will you do when you can't find a ready prepackaged response? Oh wait we already know. obviously since no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares since he is wrong, why don't you just admit that he is wrong?
*clap clap* A system that provides a ready answer to every conceivable question. The Astargath method. |
|
|
|
No where in the above quote did I declare you are evil, nor did I declare what your ethics are.
You have on two separate and very recent occasions in this particular thread stated that my ethics are evil. I will quote them for you to refresh your memory. For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men because he thinks they will father children they can not support. But this results in a clusterfucked totalitarianism. Man can not defeat nature.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Religion was an attempt to control nature. And it necessarily leaks/fails, because nature abhors a perfected, non-existence.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:06am
For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men
I am not interested in debate or looking to "win" a charge was leveled against me that is both serious and false. This demanded a public rebuttal. I have now replied to the falsehood and have no further interest in the matter. |
|
|
|
STOP JUDGING OTHERS BY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR GOD!
...
Stop boxing me in, and presuming your interpretation of a theological question is correct. God is a personal matter
I don't and haven't. However, a grave and serious Judgement has be made against me by another. It is an extremely serious charge, serious enough that I am compelled to respond to my accuser. CC’s ethics are actually evil.
To to declare someone's ethical framework as evil is about as dire an accusation as one can level. It's a spiritual charge the declaration that their morality is false. In the face of such an attack it is important to clearly state what the foundations of my ethics are and I am entitled to demand the same of my accuser. The foundation of my ethics can be traced to two core principles. Matthew 22:36-40 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."From this comes my belief on how we should treat women. We are required to love our neighbor as ourselves even when they are very different at a biological level. This means treating women as you would have wanted to be treated if you had been born female instead of male with all the difference that come with that. It means putting yourself in the place of others and truly acting with a mind to not just your interests but theirs. I am of the opinion that Jesus is telling us to be superrational but in a much deeper and fundamental way. Superrationality itself is simply an attempt to formalize that wisdom with only partial success. See: Superrationality and the Infinite Yes a female brain will always be different then a male brain. That does not make it worth less just different better at some things and worse at some things. All women are still children of God and deserving the respect that comes with that as are all Men. A human brain will similarly be different then an AI brain that will surely come along someday or the brain of an extraterrestrial if we ever encounter something along those lines. The wisdom above tells us how to behave in regards to all of these scenarios. That at any rate is my truth. Yes there are very valid issues raised by those who are concerned about the disruption of traditional gender roles and the harmful effects that result from this. These are difficult problems that do not have simple solutions. However, the existence of these problems does not mean we are exempt from higher ethical responsibilities. Our challenge as men is to work towards finding solutions to these problems while simultaneously holding ourselves to a moral code in an era where both morality and God are widely ignored and mocked. This is no easy task but it is the burden of men to bear it. We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands - Ephesians 4:29  |
|
|
|
Before everyone dumps their BTG, can we atleast try to see it surpass bcash
Deal. I’m in 🤪 Count me in as well |
|
|
|
You are an atheist on all the other religions. https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htmNext time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius. Your arguments are growing increasingly erratic. I am not an atheist of other religions. I believe Jews, Christians, and Muslim all worship the same God and most educated practitioners of those faiths would agree with that assertion. There are differences of opinion on the proper way to worship God and and there are some who falsely invoke God's name to do evil. Error is to be expected in any human attempt to understand the infinite. This is why it is important to build our religious beliefs up from first principles rather then relying solely on organized authority to tell us what to believe. I don't believe in paganism, the worship of nature, or snake gods but that would make me a heretic from the perspective of those religions not an atheist. Regarding refusing medical care. I have never advocated anything of the sort. God helps those who help themselves. If you are ill the best strategy is to usually to pray for guidance and healing then start educating yourself on your illness its treatment and your options regarding doctors and seek out the highest quality care possible.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
I had never heard of Göbekli Tepe so I read the Wikipedia article on it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_TepeFascinating history there. |
|
|
|
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo. Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many? Astargath I was going to compliment you on the quality of your response when I saw the quotation marks. As a rule of thumb it is always best to cite the source and give credit when quoting people. In any case it appears the author is not the one you linked above but John W. Loftus a former Christian turned atheist writer who has published several books about his opposition to Christianity. Loftus Writings: http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2006/12/does-science-invalidate-religious.html?m=1In any event I take the position that Mr. Loftus is mistaken regarding the bolded comment above. I highlighted the reasons why in the Scientific Discoveries by Religion Thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1956497.msg19431179#msg19431179I do not want to clutter this thread up with things I have posted elsewhere but I would draw your attention to my first and third post in that thread where I draw from the writings of John C. Wright and Bruce Charlton who challenge Mr. Loftus position. Charlton and Wright are also both writers and former atheist turned Christians so they make for good opponents to hold up against Loftus. No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis. Insane views lack coherence. The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanityhttp://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
*
There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.
Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.
There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.
Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).
*
Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.
In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.
This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.
But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).
*
Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.
Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.
We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.
Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.
Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.
*
So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.
In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.
|
|
|
|
 Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say. ''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations? And thus we come full circle to exactly where we were four months ago. Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.
... One way the Bible "works" is by creating the conditions that allow science to "work". Christianity and Science: Friends or Foes?https://www.exploregod.com/christianity-and-science-friends-or-foesThere are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
So where did these metaphysical assumptions come from? Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendomhttp://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails. The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce. ... Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else. To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that: - The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
- This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
- Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
- The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions: - Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
- Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
- Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
- Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom. Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.So what happens to science in a world that starts to reject the basic foundation that allowed for science in the first place. Like so many other things it starts to die. This slow death is well documented by Charlton. Not even trying: the corruption of real sciencehttp://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
|
|
|
|
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Not just assumptions like you do.
My arguments for religion are very much grounded in empiricism. There is nothing wrong with empiricism it is a very powerful tool for finding truth. Science is great but it has its own limitations and a priori assumptions as all human systems do. What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science has (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
|
|
|
|
I found this exchange between AgentofCoin and Hyperme.sh (One of Anonymint's recent and now banned incarcerations) a fascinating read the exchange starts here. Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80Does Anonymint now believe that bitcoin is part of a Satanic/Zionist plot? I have read about countless plots of that variety in the Phoenix Journals, and the solution is also described in some detail. I think Anonymint needs our support in order to create an alternative to the destructive forces of evil, I would like to reach him to offer some assistance, but he needs to stop arguing with people: it is not very productive. Yep that's what it sounds like though that was not the part of the exchange I found most interesting. He is still around.His latest incarnation is "CornCube" which I think he chose to annoy me. He can be reached by PM and also hangs out in the Dark Enlightenment thread. |
|
|
|
I found this exchange between AgentofCoin and Hyperme.sh (One of Anonymint's recent and now banned incarcerations) a fascinating read the exchange starts here. Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80 |
|
|
|
''I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions'' If you admit they are just assumptions then don't use it as evidence to say the belief in god is logical. It would only be logical if all the assumptions are correct. I can use X amounts of assumptions to prove the belief in magic unicorns is logical. It's pointless.
As for my beliefs, I don't have. Why would I believe in anything for no reason?
All knowledge is ultimately based on apriori truth Astargath. All empiricism can ever do is take you back to primary assumptions and then evaluate the consistency and fit of the model from the basis of those assumptions. I explained this earlier in some depth. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24418501#msg24418501Your response was: That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about.
You don't understand epistemology and metaphysics. That is ok but the problem with not understanding metaphysics is that we really can't get very far in discussions such as ours above. It is metaphysics that teaches us how to use our understanding. Without metaphysics there is no knowledge or proof. Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
why create humans that you know ultimately will fail and you want to send them to hell for eternal torture (which also makes no sense, eternal torture I mean) in any of this... Why is god attributed these silly emotions that only a mortal would have? Why would he send his ''son'' to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive us? Come on man, you gotta be kidding me, you really believe in this bullshit?
Up until now (several pages of) answers and replies to you have been simple logic and deduction essentially IF -> THEN statements. However, I am not wise enough to answer these last questions in the same definitive manner. The best I can do is share my opinions on these issues. Perhaps that will be helpful. On the question of Adam and Eve I believe the Bible/Torah is best understood as a functional document. It's intent and purpose is to redeem and rectify humanity. For this to occur biblical wisdom must be conveyed in a manner that is both simplified enough to be understandable by primitive man while simultaneously accurately reflecting a truth which can be better understood as our wisdom grows. The best way to meet these two needs is via parable and metaphor. (The reasoning below represents my opinions and speculations on these issues. I make no claims beyond that) Adam and Eve in the garden can be looked at literally as a man and a woman walking through a garden and considering the fruit of various trees. Or Adam and Eve can be looked at as a metaphor for our species progenitors. All choices were potentially open to our remotest ancestors but a singular choice namely the development of an intellect capable of understanding good and evil was "forbidden" as that choice leads to severe and inevitable consequences. Many "punishments" outlined in the Bible are not necessarily outside intervention but simple cause and effect the inevitable consequences we bring upon ourselves from sin. Let's look at the "punishment" women received as a result of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children"Why is childbearing in humans so painful? A religious man would have told you 1000 years ago that it was because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. It has taken science a very long time to catch up to this very simplified but according to our current theories essentially accurate description. Current science theory states that the reason human birth and labor is so painful and dangerous is due to the physiological consequences of our large brains specifically some combination of the physical limitations of pelvic size when walking upright and the extreme metabolic demands a large infant brain places on a mother. See: Why Is Human Childbirth So Painful? https://www.americanscientist.org/article/why-is-human-childbirth-so-painfulFor the most part God doesn't punish us we punish ourselves with our choices. Sometimes these "choices" were made long before our time but these the consequences nevertheless impact us. Regarding eternal damnation not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Some for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil. See: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htmNow unlike my prior posts which were simple logical deduction the arguments in this post are opinion. They are one possible interpretation. I have not proven this opinion is fact and am not in a position to do so currently. I share them as a potential answer to your questions but your questions are spiritual ones and must ultimately be answered on a personal and individual level. |
|
|
|
I have already shattered the ''logic'' used by perry marshall and you don't want to accept that. You are telling me that after 20 assumptions belief in god is logical, well my friend, that doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It's fairly simple, if god is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point for any of this, no point for humans to be waiting for god to comeback, why would he? No point in living this life because he already knows whether someone would go to hell or heaven. Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
Not to mention all the scientific errors in the bible + all the contradictions that I linked before.
You shattered it huh? Well I suppose we are all giants in our own minds. I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions. In most standard mathematical notations 3 < 20 I must also be the bearer of bad news. Although you have repeatedly refused to talk about what you believe in I must inform you that these beliefs whatever they may be are ultimately supported by primary assumptions. Now on to your chief objection actually two objections. 1) You state that if God is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point to life for God already knows the outcome. 2) You question the sin of Adam and Eve. You ask If God knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them. For the sake of brevity let's address your first question now and once we are done with that we can return to the second objection in a later post. To respond to your objection we must first understand the purpose of creation. I will quote the words of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who wrote an interesting book on this topic. The Way of God (Chapter 2) The Purpose of Creation
God's purpose in creation was to bestow His good to another.
God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to Him. Any imaginable perfection, with the exception of God's, is therefore not true perfection, but it is only relative to something less perfect. Absolute perfection, however, is only That of God.
Since God desires to bestow good, a partial good would not be sufficient. The good that He bestows would have to be the ultimate good that His handiwork could accept. God alone, however, is the only true good, and therefore His beneficent desire would not be satisfied unless it could bestow that very good, namely the true perfect good that exists in His intrinsic Essence.
This is also true in another way. True good exists only in God. His wisdom therefore decreed that the nature of this true benefaction be His giving created things the opportunity to attach themselves to Him to Him to the greatest degree possible for them.
Therefore, even though created things cannot emulate God's perfection in their own right, the fact that they can be attached to Him allows them to partake of it, since they can be considered part of God's perfection as a result of their association with Him. They can thus derive pleasure from that true good to the greatest degree possible for them.
The purpose of all that was created was therefore to bring into existence a creature who could derive pleasure from God's own good, in a way that would be possible for it.
God's wisdom, however, decreed that for such good to be perfect, the one enjoying it must be its master. He must be one who has earned it for himself, and not one given it accidentally or by chance.
If you understand the above passage then you will have the answer to why there is a point to life even if the ultimate outcome is already known to God and not in doubt (see the bolded text above). |
|
|
|
...
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible
...
Given the length of this exchange a summary of what we have discussed so far is warranted. Upthread I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24187846#msg24187846I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24374030#msg24374030I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24330562#msg24330562Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24418501#msg24418501At this point you asked to start the conversation over again. Ok, let's start again.
We returned to the logic that allows us to mathematically deduce the incompleteness of the universe and reviewed it in greater depth reducing that logic down to its three primary assumptions. These assumptions are reasonable and currently not disprovable. I invited you try. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24665515#msg24665515https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24791749#msg24791749Finally I outlined how one could make the case for God using an entirely empirical argument. You have chosen to ignore this argument. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24814642#msg24814642Now it appears you are returning to attempts to challenge the existence of God by challenging the consistency of traditional holy texts. I have already demonstrated how traditional biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought and in response you appear have shifted your focus of criticism of the story of Adam and Eve. Please clarify what exactly in biblical account of Adam and Eve are you objecting and why you feel this objection disproves God. Why do you feel that humanity's flaws are evidence against an omniscient and omnipotent creator? |
|
|
|
Argument for God1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem. See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us we cannot identify truth. See: The Coherence Theory of Truth3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it. See: Metaphysical Attitudes4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support. See: Superrationality and the Infinite 5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom. See: Freedom and God6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it is likely necessary for continued progress. See: Religion and Progress and See: Faith and Future7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health. See: Health and Religion8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics. See: Music that Illuminates for more.
|
|
|
|
So really this isn't proof of anything.
...
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
...
I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong,
...
Sigh you were doing so well Astargath. Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself. If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside. Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge. What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way. This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe. Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion. For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy. the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism.
I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism.
What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions. This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion. P.S. If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental. P.P.S You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are: 1) That the universe is finite 2) That the universe is rational 3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system. |
|
|
|
So many IF's in your argument.
...
no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares
...
why don't you just admit that he is wrong?
how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe?
Logical arguments are a series of conditional IF-THEN statements built upon axioms. This is what logic is. It is also how we "know" an argument is "right". That fact that famous atheist have not challenged Perry Marshall argument is not relevant. Upthread you said Perry Marshall was an electrical engineer I did not actually know that but that's also irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fail on their merits. Without meaning to be insulting your posts sometimes give the impression that you rely on others sources you consider to be authoritative to tell you what to believe. You do not need to do this as you are intelligent and capable of breaking an argument down to its basic assumptions as you demonstrate below. '''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible a question we cannot answer, does it?
...
There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system.
Good job you have found the third and final major assumption in Perry Marshall's argument. I was not going to tell you this one unless you figured it out for yourself. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem tell's us that any logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. Is God one of those questions that cannot be answered from within the system? Perry Marshall assumes that it is but he does not prove this. As you said the property of being an uncaused cause alone could potentially be characterized. With this we have identified all of the primary assumptions in Perry Marshall's argument. These are: 1) That the universe is finite 2) That the universe is rational 3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system. If all three of these assumptions are true THEN Perry Marshall's conclusions logically follow. All of the assumptions Perry Marshall makes are reasonable I do not believe any of them can be proven false but that does not mean they are true. We can as asema did argue that the universe is not finite. A strong nihilist might argue that the universe may not be rational. Finally a theist may argue that God can be proven directly so assumption three is false and Perry Marshall's argument is unnecessary. IF all three of Perry Marshall's assumptions are true THEN his conclusions follow. Do we agree? |
|
|
|
If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.
You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.
Correct GIT does not tell us that there is something outside the universe. Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible. It also suggests that if there is something outside the universe we not only cannot but will likely never be able to confirm or deny its existence with logic and science alone. It tells us that this question will forever be beyond science. It will always be a question of metaphysical axioms or faith. We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.
Why? How are we deducing this?
We can deduce some basic properties of what may lie outside of the universe by what it is not. It is not more universe. I will repeat Perry Marshal's circle analogy here because although this is an oversimplification it is probably the simplist way of conceptualizing this point. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Centuryhttps://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
...
Here’s what it means:
Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
...
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
Note the circle here is not a literal circle but a metaphor for the part of the system in this case the universe that is defined and proven. Also note that there are two assumptions in the argument 1) that the universe is finite and 2) that the universe is mathematical aka rational. Both of these assumptions are reasonable ones given our current understanding but neither has been proven to apply across the entire universe. |
|
|
|
As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.''
I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree?
Ok let's break this down step by step. For now lets assume that we can apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) to the universe. We can circle back and challenge that assumption later if you wish. What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter. We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria. GIT does not prove God it simply shows that the concept of God is logical. It also suggests that it may never be possible to prove God with logic. Logic may only be able to show us that God is possible, logical, and consistent. Why is this important? 1) GIT is useful as it provides an counter to those who argue that God is illogical. It shows that God as described by monotheism is consistent with what we can logically conclude may exist outside of the universe. GIT does not prove God. 2) GIT also highlights the limitations of science and logic. It suggests that God is a logical first axiom. It also suggests that nihilism is a logical first axiom. 3) GIT suggests that science may never be able to resolve this question. No matter how sophisticated intelligent or advanced we become this fundamental tension between theism and nihilism may never go away as the answer to this question lies outside of the system. Faith therefore will probably always remain necessary and refusal to take a position in the hopes of some scientific breakthrough is unlikely to be fruitful. 4) Finally GIT highlights the symmetry between religious and nihilist thinking at the level of first principles. Both the nihilist and the theist must ultimately relay on faith. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
