Who designed the designer?

[Musika]

Taoist beliefs are often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place. So are various foundational beliefs of even the most baroque and extravagantly mythical of theistic religions (the Parables and Fables of the Middle Eastern theistic ones, the foundational narratives of Hinduism, etc).
.

It appears you have simply read on wiki that taoists don't worship God and now feel comfortable to use them as a stool pigeon for your atheism. Even atheists bring with them their own flavour of "baroque extravagence", what to speak of the various schools of taoism.

.

The correlations between facts and the "atheist perspective" are not generally coincidences.

In the mind of an theist, this appears to be a fact.

The ways in which human design proves inadequate, the world forever and flagrantly fails to behave as human design would have it, could also be taken as evidence of the ultimate inadequacy of design and designer as explanatory concepts.

Its not clear what the limits of human design have to do with ideas of design as an explanatory concept.

That would be an obvious alternative to taking them as evidence of a perfect and humanly incomprehensible designer imposing a perfect and humanly incomprehensible design.

If you want to discuss "perfect design" beyond the human capacity, it seems the first point one would have to introduce is a teleological element beyond human interests, as opposed to a teleological element relegated to human interests.
IOW discussion requires a better form than "on the whole, humans have a tough time in the universe, therefore the universe is not designed".

 

[Musika]

Funny, how such an intelligent man deals with such unintelligent thoughts.

:EDIT:

You know, just go away.

:EDIT AGAIN:

Oh wait, you had nothing substantial to say in the first place. Scurry off to another forum.

Scurrying off seems to be your thing.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Scurrying off seems to be your thing.

Well, what do you have to discuss?

 

[Musika]

That our own universe is eternal is one of many possible explanations regarding its existence, and scientists will speculate and theorize as to which of those many descriptions is rationally most fitting.

Hence, sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Such is the nature of guesswork the further one moves into guesswork.

Unlike religion, there’s no hard commitment to unfounded propositions,

Your bias about religion aside, your ideas about science are plainly not true. The institutional momentum behind many of the sciences demands commitment to many unfounded propositions ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism)
at the peril of one's career. Its an inevitable aspect of human society that when something calls upon both money and power, it has the capacity to resist any change that disturbs the status quo.

and commitment in science is always open to revision, in fact the encouragement of propositional revision is one of its cornerstones.

It becomes very debatable if you want to talk about the practical means it is open to revision or it encourages it.

When speculating about the nature reality outside of our universe, the possibilities could be endless, but the further you get from our own foundational understandings, the less reliable the proposition would tend to be. Proposing the existence of an eternal version of the reality we rationally interpret, has more value than a version of it we don't. So for a god to get equal billing in regards to eternal existence, a god would first have to be shown to have an existence.

If you want to discuss the nature of things outside of direct experience, it is absurd to demand that they first be shown via direct experience. Of course empiricism is all about unlocking knowledge in that manner, but that says as much about why it fails in certain epistemological fields as why it succeeds in others.

We gain the elements of knowledge empirically, process them via empirically based mental strategies, and then attempt to empirically test them in life to assess their respective value. There would be no practical human knowledge without empiricism.

Technically when the pilot tells us to put a seatbelt on for upcoming turbulence we are hearing it, but it's not an empirical exercise for us. For most of the 250 passengers, the announcement is sufficient for them to put on their seatbelt without having to run into the cockpit and attempt to read the controls to assess the respective value of the pilot's instruction.

And they all rely on some empirical means for application and validation.

Incorrect. Only one of them does.

I guess epistemological philosophy will be a difficult and incomprehensible subject for you to approach so long as you cannot recognize the inherent variety within it.

If imagination has no demonstrable relation to our material existence, it has little value. Empiricism is the means to establish that relation.

Hence the variety of demonstrations warrants varieties of epistemologies. As for empiricism, if you want kowtow it as topmost, your field of inquiry will simply be relegated to something very small and specific, no matter how much you fist pump enthusiastically.

I would say the goal of most, if not all religions would be to have their beliefs validated empirically,

On the contrary, this is simply an atheistic belief. The notion that knowable things not operate from an ontological position superior to the knower is kind of the cornerstone of atheism.

but unfortunately reality refuses to oblige them.

Or alternatively, the reality that does oblige such methodologies is not sufficiently broad enough to entertain many important questions (important questions that even atheists struggle to control themselves from and refrain from giving opinions outside such paltry parameters).

When a god or the religious demonstrate examples of empirical validation, I will label such behavior accordingly.

Since you can't even fathom variety within epistemology, much less how to validate an eternal universe empirically, its obvious you could be in for a long wait.

Most organisms are either natively equipped, or empirically conditioned to recognize these conditions. Acquaint a cockroach or a person's hand with a hot frying pan and note the result.

If you think the cockroach or a person wasn't suffering before they encountered the frying pan, you haven't understood the first lesson, what to speak of the second.

 

[Musika]

Well, what do you have to discuss?

I could ask you the same q

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I could ask you the same q

OK.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So what do you propose to model something like the BB on without bringing a truckload of opinions?

What I propose is the scientific method, which you need to look into, which demands a great deal more than a truck load of opinion.

Or what happened to the idea that gravity is a pulling force?

Well I have the idea that gravity is a pushing force and if I could present a better scientific model science would follow a new model.

That is the wonderful thing about science it can change and does change and does not proclaim "we now have the answer we can stop now".

Personally I dont like aspects of the big bang theory but I have the sence to know that I can present a better model if I have one.

Try that with religion.

Unless you have some means to a vantage point outside the universe, how are you going to observe the universe outside of self referential models that are liable to change to the point of oblivion (ie, making marks in the sand)?

Yes but we dont have that do we and given you raise such think about your claims ..less than marks in the sand you must admit.

If you disagree with the big bang theory simply☺ present a better model.

Present your God model following the scientific method and maybe you can elevate your claims to something more than unsupported superstition and made up stories from the bronze age.

If you feel I made some mistake, you will have to be more specific.

The casual way you use the word theory underlines your mistake.

I suggest rather than theory "notion" could be the word that would fit your need.

Why the "but"?
I already said as much about newtonian ideas in my post.

To underline just how wonderful the scientific method can be.

Ideas change as we learn more a feature unknown to religion.

so it wouldn't make sense to make such demands.

Of course because if subject to those demands religion is out the door.

Unfortunately this lack doesn't stop people attempting to bring empiricism to such problems.

It is indeed unfortunate...fancy demanding a rational approach to religion, a place where reason is the enemy and the believers called upon to rely on faith.

I am already somewhat familiar with Popper.

You may recognise the name certainly but it seems you have not understood what he has said.

You present to me as a well read chap but I doubt if you have read and comprehend exactly the proposition outlined by Popper.

Try and put on some "Popper" glasses and although you may not change your beliefs you may benefit from a better understanding of science particularly what it wont say.
Alex

 

[Musika]

What I propose is the scientific method, which you need to look into, which demands a great deal more than a truck load of opinion.

If you have changing scientific advancements that bring with it nothing except the rewriting of previous ideas because they found something they missed, it's difficult to understand how one can think of it as anything else other than opinions being changed.

Well I have the idea that gravity is a pushing force

Then you would have difficulty explaining why light bends relative to mass.

and if I could present a better scientific model science would follow a new model.

Opinions would change, no doubt.

That is the wonderful thing about science it can change and does change and does not proclaim "we now have the answer we can stop now".

So it then beggars belief why one would use it as a yardstick to validate religion or God as a myth and stop there.

Personally I dont like aspects of the big bang theory but I have the sence to know that I can present a better model if I have one.

Try that with religion.

If even that model is subject to redress by subsequent models, it's not clear how you are moving the process to a status beyond making marks in the sand.

Yes but we dont have that do we and given you raise such think about your claims ..less than marks in the sand you must admit.

If you want to talk about the universe having some inherent quality (such as God being a product of myth or the universe being eternal), it's not clear why there is suddenly no need.

If you disagree with the big bang theory simply☺ present a better model.

Present your God model following the scientific method and maybe you can elevate your claims to something more than unsupported superstition and made up stories from the bronze age.

The very notion of modeling God (or the universe) is absurd. You would have better luck sitting in your bathroom on the look out for whales in your basin, because, by all contemporary opinion, you just modelled the pacific ocean there.

IOW my whole point about going on about the scientific method is that the very nature of modeling involves bringing flawed premises into the fold. Dressing up this inevitable and repeated need for scrapping models is the modus operandi of empiricism. Assuming that other epistemologies be remedied in the same fashion assumes that one be perpetually relegated to the realm of flawed knowledge.

As such, it says less about what is knowable and more about the requirement of atheism that the knowable does not occupy a higher ontological status than the knower. Or, "I'm OK with knowledge, as long as I am/we are the brainy ones".

The casual way you use the word theory underlines your mistake.

I suggest rather than theory "notion" could be the word that would fit your need.

Perhaps you are right.

To underline just how wonderful the scientific method can be.

Ideas change as we learn more a feature unknown to religion.

I'm not sure how you can even take a casual glance at history and say the same is not true of religion.

Of course because if subject to those demands religion is out the door.

Not just religion, but also your ideas of an eternal universe and a host of other claims with airs of authority hijacked from science.

It is indeed unfortunate...fancy demanding a rational approach to religion, a place where reason is the enemy and the believers called upon to rely on faith.

Its only unfortunate for those who lack self control to remain obedient to their self imposed epistemological glass ceilings.

You may recognise the name certainly but it seems you have not understood what he has said.

You present to me as a well read chap but I doubt if you have read and comprehend exactly the proposition outlined by Popper.

Try and put on some "Popper" glasses and although you may not change your beliefs you may benefit from a better understanding of science particularly what it wont say.
Alex

If you think Popper brings something to the discussion other than his name, now is the time to bring it up.

 

[iceaura]

It appears you have simply read on wiki that taoists don't worship God and now feel comfortable to use them as a stool pigeon for your atheism.

No it doesn't. What's with the goofy? This is the quote: "Taoist beliefs are often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place."

Its not clear what the limits of human design have to do with ideas of design as an explanatory concept.

It's not that hard to follow, though, as a suggested line of thought.

It can help one avoid this kind of self-blindness:

IOW my whole point about going on about the scientific method is that the very nature of modeling involves bringing flawed premises into the fold

If you want to discuss "perfect design" beyond the human capacity,

As posted, and as you quoted (so you must have at least glanced at it), I clearly and directly recommend not bothering with that but instead taking a different approach altogether - avoiding that self-contradictory muddle; recognizing instead that projecting or extrapolating from the human concept of "design" is immediately confused.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

it's difficult to understand how one can think of it as anything else other than opinions being changed.

I can understand why you could think such but I do think there is more to it really.
In any event things move forward and new observations are fitted in.
I am not saying it is a perfect system but it has the merit of requiring any change of "opinion" has support by way of evidence and most importantly testable prediction.

Then you would have difficulty explaining why light bends relative to mass.

I would not but that means little as my whole idea about gravity being a pushing force is a mere notion.
But although I form a notion I dont try to convert it to reality because I have a good feeling about it.

So it then beggars belief why one would use it as a yardstick to validate religion or God as a myth and stop there.

Perhaps.

, it's not clear how you are moving the process to a status beyond making marks in the sand.

Perhaps. But these marks in the sand have a great deal to back them up and really if you have a better model you stand out in history.
One could look to a larger picture where all activities of humans could be looked at as a mere blink in time and space.

IOW my whole point about going on about the scientific method is that the very nature of modeling involves bringing flawed premises into the fold.

Yes I can admit that is posible indeed probable.
One of my reasons for disliking the big bang is it seems the church were somewhat fond of the cosmic egg idea which was origin inally a Pagan idea indeed many cultures had a creation model notion☺ where it all came about spliting an egg.
I would have thought you would like the idea of a big bang approach as the theory leaves creation unexplained where must be a great place to say God did it.
Anyways nice observations on your part I would like to make other small observations but they are trivial and I unfortunately must go.
Alex

 

[Musika]

No it doesn't. What's with the goofy?

Its more to do with your choice of key words. For instance this ...

This is the quote: "Taoist beliefs are often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place."

... sounds a lot better as :

"Atheism is often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place."

It seems obvious to me you are just playing with the topology of wiki-Taoism (taoism as understood through zero contact with communities who actually practice the lifestyle) to provide breathing space for atheism.
(Although many atheists would be abashed to say they have anything to do with a narrative, despite looking, walking and quacking like a duck)

At the very least, you will need to provide what aspect of "reality" is being "validated" (or as you say, "carefully observed") that enables taoists to bring forth the "narrative" of taoist heaven and hell and the rigmarole of the next life and so many other things intrinsic to the narratives of taoism. Once you perform that herculean feat, your next task will be to show how all this operates as the point of generation (or "first case", as you say) for taoism.
Goodluck.

IOW what is validating the reality here? The narrative or the "careful" observation?

It's not that hard to follow, though, as a suggested line of thought.

It can help one avoid this kind of self-blindness:


As posted, and as you quoted (so you must have at least glanced at it), I clearly and directly recommend not bothering with that but instead taking a different approach altogether - avoiding that self-contradictory muddle; recognizing instead that projecting or extrapolating from the human concept of "design" is immediately confused.

You are going to have to walk us through what you deem as self-contradictory here because it is not apparent.

 

[Capracus]

Hence, sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Such is the nature of guesswork the further one moves into guesswork.

Except that science expects its guesswork to be rationally validated, where religion does not.

Your bias about religion aside, your ideas about science are plainly not true. The institutional momentum behind many of the sciences demands commitment to many unfounded propositions ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism)
at the peril of one's career. Its an inevitable aspect of human society that when something calls upon both money and power, it has the capacity to resist any change that disturbs the status quo.

You’re speaking of human character flaws, not flaws in the principles of science. These same character flaws also permeate the ranks of the religious.

It becomes very debatable if you want to talk about the practical means it is open to revision or it encourages it.

All human behavior is subject to social bias and inertia, and the principles of science are crafted to mitigate these influences.

If you want to discuss the nature of things outside of direct experience, it is absurd to demand that they first be shown via direct experience. Of course empiricism is all about unlocking knowledge in that manner, but that says as much about why it fails in certain epistemological fields as why it succeeds in others.

Apparently you missed the point. To infer an eternal universe, a sensiable existing universe exists to base that claim on. To propose an eternal existence outside of our universe, an infinite collection of like universes could be rationally proposed based on the known existence of the one. Essentially an extrapolation of our currently perceived cosmology would be a more reasonable model of an eternal reality than one that has no demonstrable properties. You can propose any conception of reality that suits your fancy, but you can’t equate it with conceptions that are more sensibly relatable.

Technically when the pilot tells us to put a seatbelt on for upcoming turbulence we are hearing it, but it's not an empirical exercise for us. For most of the 250 passengers, the announcement is sufficient for them to put on their seatbelt without having to run into the cockpit and attempt to read the controls to assess the respective value of the pilot's instruction.

Let me count the ways. You empirically learned the language of the pilot, empirically acquired the knowledge of the identity, operation and use of a seatbelt, and were empirically conditioned to follow the instructions of authority figures such as pilots and flight attendants. Are you going to suggest the basis for this behavior was not derived through sensory experience? Maybe the motivational knowledge was acquired astrally during a period of self abandonment?

Incorrect. Only one of them does.

I guess epistemological philosophy will be a difficult and incomprehensible subject for you to approach so long as you cannot recognize the inherent variety within it.

Go ahead and explain your reasoning.

Hence the variety of demonstrations warrants varieties of epistemologies. As for empiricism, if you want kowtow it as topmost, your field of inquiry will simply be relegated to something very small and specific, no matter how much you fist pump enthusiastically.

When you occupy a body and mind that are designed to function by way of their senses, why would you suggest that we adopt a non sensory approach to investigation and validation of reality? How about we start desensitizing fetuses in the womb so that their developing minds will be unencumbered by their senses, and be able to more effectively tap into these sources of extrasensory knowledge.

On the contrary, this is simply an atheistic belief. The notion that knowable things not operate from an ontological position superior to the knower is kind of the cornerstone of atheism.

Then by all means enlighten us. The next trip you take to the astral library, check out the blueprints of reality, make a digital copy, and upload them to the web for all to see.

Since you can't even fathom variety within epistemology, much less how to validate an eternal universe empirically, its obvious you could be in for a long wait.

Neither of us will live to see such an accomplishment, regardless of the looking glass employed, so no disappointment from my end.

If you think the cockroach or a person wasn't suffering before they encountered the frying pan, you haven't understood the first lesson, what to speak of the second.

What, to be alive is to suffer? Is that why Jesus opted for the cross?

 

[sideshowbob]

Its also difficult to show one is not utilizing a belief by utilizing a belief.

Lack of belief is not a belief. Hunger is not a kind of food.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I could ask you the same q

I want to discuss what a waste of human potential it is to have some brain doing a factory job. Having all the life sucked out of them. Being forced into discontent and resentment for the almighty dollar.

I want to discuss why being politically correct is bad. Is there a man on this board that will fight for the right of incels just because he believes it will help him not to be socially picked on in his desire to wear women's dresses?

I want to discuss why the heck God enters politics.

 

[iceaura]

It seems obvious to me you are just playing with the topology of wiki-Taoism

And since I'm not, not even close, your next legitimate concern (which need not be a forum presence or topic) would be how you come to make - or at least post (no sense in presuming) - such goofy mistakes of perception.

Maybe start here:

Its more to do with your choice of key words. For instance this ...
... sounds a lot better as :
"Atheism is often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place."

Why would a rewrite contrary to what I posted, in conflict with even the basic idea and direction of implication and role in the argument of my post, be attributed to me at all - regardless of how it "sounds"?

(taoism as understood through zero contact with communities who actually practice the lifestyle)

Taoism is a "lifestyle"? Are you by chance parodying some bigoted Abrahamic fundie whackjob?
Would that we could assume that. We can't. Abrahamic fundies have no self-awareness whatsoever - no matter what their lifestyle http://unskkkk.com/vintagephotos/_640x480_/cdff_1.jpg_pic.htm

At the very least, you will need to provide what aspect of "reality" is being "validated" (or as you say, "carefully observed") that enables taoists to bring forth the "narrative" of taoist heaven and hell and the rigmarole of the next life and so many other things intrinsic to the narratives of taoism.

No, I don't. I made a simple and true statement, in support of an argument here. Your need to deflect attention from that argument is of course obvious, but imposes no obligations on other people.

IOW what is validating the reality here? The narrative or the "careful" observation?

Your question is a confusion, a misreading. And the error taken the other direction - asking whether reality validates the observation or the narrative - would be equivalently confused.

You are going to have to walk us through what you deem as self-contradictory here because it is not apparent.

The self contradiction referred to was of course not there, but referred to. It was and is - as noted in the post, somehow missed by you - in the common attempts to take ad hoc projections of the human concept of design and designer, bootstrapped from human devices and design, as an independent ground or embedding context of the universe in which human concepts exist.

If you have changing scientific advancements that bring with it nothing except the rewriting of previous ideas because they found something they missed, it's difficult to understand how one can think of it as anything else other than opinions being changed.

And if you have instead changing scientific advancements that bring entirely new capabilities and fundamental comprehensions with them, explaining the formerly inexplicable, altering the circumstances of one's daily life and possibly the course of human civilization in ways unimaginable in one's own childhood even, describing them as somebody's changed opinion about something seems - a bit - y'know - inadequate. At best.

 

[Musika]

I want to discuss what a waste of human potential it is to have some brain doing a factory job. Having all the life sucked out of them. Being forced into discontent and resentment for the almighty dollar.

There you have it already.
Somewhere along the merry way of civilization's development, the notion of delayed rewards, namely fiat currencies, attained for performing bizarre activities, such as sticking dohickies on widgets, got dovetailed with a collective need to acquire the glitter associated with widghickies, while people starve.
In light of what many see as the inevitable collapse of fiat currencies, there is much discussion about what constitutes real wealth and real skills. The conclusion seems to be that neither money, nor widghickey production skills can provide eatables.
From God's perspective, He has provided the real estate and the means to grow food and an instruction booklet that says "beware of the shiny shit". I guess ultimately it's a case of all that glitters is not gold and a question arises of whether a shitty world has its origin in shit on the brain. If we have shit on our brain, it is poor form to lay that blame at the feet of others, particularly God.

I want to discuss why being politically correct is bad. Is there a man on this board that will fight for the right of incels just because he believes it will help him not to be socially picked on in his desire to wear women's dresses?

Unity within diversity just becomes plain old competitive, disruptive, argumentative, express-my-self-with-high-powered-guns-in-public, etc diversity if unity has no practical point of reference. Kind of like a person experiencing a heart attack in public while some well meaning samaritan reassures them that everything is ok, just be calm, the science of treating heart attacks exists in the world, just not the practitioners.

I want to discuss why the heck God enters politics.

It would be more questionable if God didn't. If politics is our highest tier for duking out the application of important ideas, it seems reasonable to expect that God takes a place in politics to the degree God is deemed an important idea. To the degree God is not deemed an important idea, see your previous two points of discussion.

 

[Musika]

Lack of belief is not a belief. Hunger is not a kind of food.

It's the nature of existence that it's not passive. Belief, much like food, is a required intake.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It's the nature of existence that it's not passive.

Would you care to offer support for your claim?
Alex

 

[Musika]

And since I'm not, not even close, your next legitimate concern (which need not be a forum presence or topic) would be how you come to make - or at least post (no sense in presuming) - such goofy mistakes of perception.

Saying that you are not isn't the same as showing that you are not.

Maybe start here:
Why would a rewrite contrary to what I posted, in conflict with even the basic idea and direction of implication and role in the argument of my post, be attributed to me at all - regardless of how it "sounds"?

Because it seems obvious it has less intrinsic substance in relation to taoism and more in relation to atheism.
Since atheism is "your thing", it seems easy to understand why you might drape taoism in such a manner.

Taoism is a "lifestyle"?

If you can tag "ist" to "tao", then yes, it does appear certain behaviours relative to precepts determine an approach, or "style", in regards to "life".
Disregard them, either the behaviours or the precepts, and it just makes others wonder about your language usage.

Are you by chance parodying some bigoted Abrahamic fundie whackjob?

No.

No, I don't. I made a simple and true statement, in support of an argument here. Your need to deflect attention from that argument is of course obvious, but imposes no obligations on other people.

Pointing out how your argument is neither true nor simple is not a deflection. Upon receiving such a critique, not clarifying how one's argument is true and simple is a deflection.

Your question is a confusion, a misreading. And the error taken the other direction - asking whether reality validates the observation or the narrative - would be equivalently confused.

Well whenever you finish going on about what your argument is not, feel free to begin explaining what it is, preferably not in the same manner that gave rise to the original critique ...

The self contradiction referred to was of course not there, but referred to.

Sheesh.
So it was referred to there ...

It was and is - as noted in the post, somehow missed by you - in the common attempts to take ad hoc projections of the human concept of design and designer, bootstrapped from human devices and design, as an independent ground or embedding context of the universe in which human concepts exist.

You are going to have to break it down to specifics of where are the ad hoc projections etc etc.
At the moment you are just presenting a word salad.

And if you have instead changing scientific advancements that bring entirely new capabilities and fundamental comprehensions with them, explaining the formerly inexplicable, altering the circumstances of one's daily life and possibly the course of human civilization in ways unimaginable in one's own childhood even, describing them as somebody's changed opinion about something seems - a bit - y'know - inadequate. At best.

I was talking specifically about cerebral pursuits of scientific conclusions that lack any demonstratable change in everyday life, etc, etc.

 

[Musika]

Would you care to offer support for your claim?
Alex

Refraining from action is simply another type of action that brings forth change, consequences etc. Non-participation is not the birthright of any living entity.