Religious proofs are nonsensical

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Dinosaur, Mar 24, 2018.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,285
    This doesn't answer the question.
    I'll ask again: why is it necessary to discard experience as real?
    One simply needs to accept that at a later point in time it might be shown not to be reality.
    Until that time, accept it on a pragmatic basis.

    To the degree you understand what the experience might be.
    As much doubt as one allows.
    You seem to be under the misapprehension that for something to be tentatively held one needs to understand exactly how it might be shown to be false?
    I don't see it that way.
    One merely needs to accept that it may be shown to be false.
    One otherwise accepts only a tentative trust in the matter, e.g. on a pragmatic basis.
    Of course.
    In the Matrix, who is to say that the metareality is any more or less real than the one being experienced by the population at large?
    Unless one can eliminate every possibility of something being wrong, there remains the possibility.
    That is all it takes.
    One doesn't need to identify every way, or indeed any way, for it to be shown to be wrong, one merely needs a mindset that allows for it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Evidence for one person is not evidence for another. Who is right?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    918
    If you want a world view that has nothing but a tentative basis, its necessary. If there is some aspect of reality which is not open to doubt, it is not tentative, hence, different world view.

    Otherwise any fool can just say "I am open to doubt my entire world view" with airs of their imagined broadness of mind.



    I'm not sure how one would define pragmatism within a purely tentative system
    (Can one be pragmatic without a sense of "who" .... or can one have a sense of who or that isn't subject to doubt?)

    In otherwords pragmatism seems only to function if you are not prepared to doubt your "self" (which includes self evident truths to which one is the seer
    In a world view that employs nothing but doubt, you don't have recourse to a platform "you are not allowed" to doubt from.
    To say everything is tenable, is to say everything can (potentially) be rejected, even the "one" doing the allowing.

    Not at all.
    For instance you could say your view on the distance to mars could be rejected as new tcchnology redefines interstellar measurement.
    Or a conspiracy on astronomers for the past 100 years has the lid blown off it.
    You don't have to talk about how the current (tentative) view is false. You just have to talk of how you could possibily introduce doubt to change it.

    When I am asking you how do you propose to doubt the feeling you are not hungry, that is all I am asking - How do you propose to introduce doubt?




    Precisely.
    If you can't talk of how it may be false, it's not tentative.



    But he is still left with the problem of not feeling hungry. (Ie he is still in the realm of being a seer of self evident truths ).
    So even after undergoing such a mind bending experience, moving between different "worlds", all of which can be assailed by doubt, one "world" remains unblemished, singular and intact.

    So then it remains, what possibilities do you introduce to problematize self evident claims to the seer (and come out with a functioning world view)?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,695
    Depends on what each are expecting the evidence to support and verify

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Since it's religion I'll ask "Did Jesus exist?". Remember lack of evidence is not evidence.
     
  9. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,695
    Remember lack of evidence is not evidence - debatable
    Lack of evidence where evidence would it be reasonable to expect evidence to be present IS accepted as evidence

    However that is another debate

    Did Jesus exist? - possible answers yes - no - maybe

    From my limited reading of the research I would be in the NO camp

    Certainly some evidence suggest YES. And THIS evidence is stuff outside of biblical text (biblical text as I read the research is largely dismissed as unreliable)

    The NO camp tends to treat all evidence as suspect, even when records appear to be confirming such a person existed. The sentiment I get from my readings are " OK someone called jesus existed BUT he is NOT the one referenced in the bible - he MIGHT have provided a sort of template which was then fleshed out with all the other stuff"

    In other words the evidence for jesus (who did EVERYTHING claimed is weak)

    MAYBE camp comes in with "OK he is exaggerated a bit - but was still real"

    You take your choice. One last point which keeps me in the NO camp - the longer the research goes MORE evidence should be expected. Not happening

    Absence of (more) evidence where more should be expected does not bode well for his existence. Not a bullet proof for non existence but certainly thicker than a tin can

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    I just used it as an example, as these debates never go anywhere on this forum, as I'm sure you know.

    But since you put alot of effort into this, or at least wrote an elegant post I'll give my 2 pence.

    Put it this way, there is as much evidence that He existed as there is for Him not existing. Another way of saying lack of evidence is not evidence.

    So we are left with Faith on one side, logic on the other. Faith(Christian,Islamic maybe others) says He does exist. Logic(unless really studied) says He didn't.

    Just around in a circle, with no one changing their mind moving into arguments and ad hominid.

    I think empirical evidence suggests He does exist, and that's why I have always believed it. Mine isn't a singular situation, so does that add weight to the "Yes He did exist"? Or is it a case of, since when has the majority been right. Like most Germans supporting Hitler in WW2.
     
  11. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,695
    I'm putting it in the lack of MORE evidence being accumulated during the long investigation / research being carried out

    Take the current existing evidence as a settled given. Why is there not more being discovered and being built upon that which is settled?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    At least you don't hate the idea of Jesus, or as far as I can see, people who believe in him.

    This is one of the latest articles:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

    The following backs up the historical figure, but is a long article you may not have time for:

    http://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk.../what-archaeology-telling-us-about-real-jesus

    I have many questions though myself. Such as, if the Messiah was supposed to usher in World Peace, why did the opposite happen?

    Maybe the answer lies in scripture, but I haven't found it yet.

    My thread about Isaiah 53 is maybe the answer as to whether or not Jesus was who he said he was.
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,973
    Nope. No one suggests there is evidence of him not existing. Only that there is no contemporary evidence that he did exist. Which is what your referenced article says. They wrote about him long after he was dead (25 years at the earliest, 60 years at the latest), when the cult of Jesus was already established. This is not empirical evidence.
     
  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,285
    I don't consider it necessary.
    Every aspect of reality might be open to doubt.
    And any fool can merely claim it is false.
    Who are you to say otherwise about their position?
    If you show that person that they are wrong and they do not change their worldview, then you might be on to something.
    Until then, merely claiming something is wrong won't do.
    It would be defined in the same manner, I'd imagine - evaluation in terms of practical application.
    I don't agree.
    The "self" is but one aspect of any practical application.
    Yes.
    But as said, it is a matter of confidence.
    The key, as stated from the outset, is simply in that it is open to being wrong.
    You don't even need to do that.
    You just need to be open to the possibility of it.
    One does not need to know how that possibility may arise, though.
    If one can't show that it is impossible then one simply accepts the possibility.
    One would simply not consider it impossible that one is actually not hungry.
    I disagree.
    First, from the outset the understanding of tentative trust is being open to the possibility of it being wrong.
    I include nothing more in the phrase than that.
    If you now wish to alter the meaning of the term beyond the original meaning upon which the comment was made...?
    It does?
    You can be sure of that, can you?
    Or do you only think so from the position of the worldview that you hold?
    As stated, which you seemed to have missed: "One doesn't need to identify every way, or indeed any way, for it to be shown to be wrong, one merely needs a mindset that allows for it."
     
  15. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,695
    I don't

    But although I know Santa Claus does not exist I am more than happy to lie to kids about his existence to give them a sense of wonder about the world

    Which is where I part ways with religion. I am all grown up now and I can experience REALITY and the WONDERMENT of REALITY

    I don't require fairy tales

    So - religion - why are you insisting on treating me like a child who must be coddled in fairy tails to shield me from reality?

    Religion corrupts reality and for me a crime. Faith is a very very poor substitute for reality and the WONDERMENT about the Universe

    Insisting "god did it" you allow the innocence of a child to whither away without having a chance to grow into the innocence of a adult

    You replace innocence with boggy man fear

    Shame shame shame

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Go your way, just know one thing. You are as bad as religion is to a child, you are full of deceit even after I give you a chance. Enjoy your life, at the end of it it just goes blank.
     
  17. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Empirical evidence can include experience, and you could say I have experience, so much so that I'll stop now, before you go off the rails.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    That's called an anecdote.
    It will be pretty tough to have that duplicated and analyzed by an independent third party.
     
  19. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    You'll find out s@@n enough.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    I can't wait.

    I'm going to bet myself a dollar it never materializes.
     
  21. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    No it won't materialise, it's already there. Spend your dollar wisely, or share it amongst yourself.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    I win a dollar.

    You implied were able to present your experiences. That's hardly a thing that can be analyzed by a third party.
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,973
    Deferring evidence to some future time is disingenuous.
     

Share This Page