SecularFuture

Each new generation would bring new ideas to explore. I do not believe that physical immortality could ever get boring, as long as people are being born.

As far as meaning is concerned (things being precious). There is no meaning to life, and that is why humans create their own meaning for living. If you did live forever, you could reinvent meaning for your life when ever you chose to, with the help and influence of the new ideas brought by the new generations.

And no - I'm not trying to convice you to become a Transhumanist or an Immortalist. I'm just trying to prove my point.

Viti

I still disagree with your point. You think we should spend our lives worried or angry at the fact that they are temprorary. But...they are temporary and we can do nothing about it at this time. I am going to spend my money enjoying today, not giving it to the cryogenecists or whatever for an unproven life extension that may or may not happen.

We aren't immortal, time is short and precious, I am going to die, so I enjoy today.

mnkbdky

Let me break this down into two statements. The first being, "you should only believe things if you have evidence."

What is your evidence to believe this? That is, what evidence do you have for me to believe that I should only believe things based on evidence?

The belief in that statement is itself based on no evidence and is thus self-refuting.

The second statement, "you should only believe something if you have reason(s)."

What makes you think the theist has no reason(s) for believing that such a being exists? It should be apparent by the end of this post that they do have reason(s) for such a belief.

You ask,

Yes. It is possible that it could have happened this way. However, it is also possible that such a God does exist and Xianity is true.

I still don't know why you think one must have exhaustive knowledge of the universe to say that something exists. You said yourself that you know thought exists--because it can be detected--and yet you do not know everything in about the universe.

Can you detect my thoughts? Do you believe I have thoughts? I believe you have thoughts. Yet, I cannot detect them. Am I unreasonable for believing you have thoughts? I hope not. I assure you that you are not irrational if you believe I have thoughts, even if you cannot detect my thoughts.

Now, it is possible that I don't know that God exists, but that does not mean no one can know. However, it is also possible that I do know God exists.

It is not logically impossible that such a being could introduce him or herself to someone and/or not introduce him or herself to others. It is also not logically impossible that through a process similar to thinking one may detect such a being.

I have a friend Jiaming from China. I know she exists. You have not met her and, therefore, have no reason to believe she exists. The fact that you have not met her, though, does not mean she does not exist. I would think that it would be rather hard to prove to you through philosophical reasoning that my friend Jiaming does indeed exist. It might be possible though if I were willing to spend the time and energy, which I am not. However, I could introduce you to her and you could met her for yourself. That would be evidence enough for you to beleive she exists.

Could it not be possible then that someone may know such a being as God exists because they have a relationship with him or her. They experience the that being. If a person has such experiences regularly and has no reason to doubt their perceptions are functioning properly, it would be unreasonable for that person to deny the existence of that which is experienced.

Regardless of whether this has ever actually happen, if a person has an experience or relationship with such a being, then, that has all the evidence they need and every reason to believe that such a being exists. They need not give philosophical reasons for believing they have such a relationship. It might be possible to give such philosophic reason for the being existence, but we can expect everyone to be a professional philosopher.


I didn't want to get into it because the thread is not about that topic. However, your thread did include a claim that we can not know things without complete knowledge, which is false.

SecularFuture

LadyShea
No I don’t. I just think that we should try to do something, as a collective, about death. Death is such a pathetic conclusion.

Nothing? Are you sure about that?

Okay.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Breaking down – Taking things out of context – Same thing.

I didn’t say “you should only believe in things if you have evidence”. And I didn’t say “you should only believe in things if you have reason.” I said “you should only believe in things if you have evidence and reason.”

[An improvement of my last statement]
You should only believe in things if you have evidence and/or reason.

Yeah – and it’s also possible that pink unicorns could exist? Do they because of this? Your logic is deeply flawed, and you should realize this by now.

Not “something”. I said “supernatural”. Something supernatural is not of the natural universe, right? For you to claim that something is of a supernatural origin or nature, you would first need to know everything that is natural.

After you have complete knowledge of the natural universe, then you would be qualified to say – “Hey. This isn’t natural. It must be supernatural.” Think about it. No - seriously. Think about it.

If it can be detected, it is natural. Again – I was talking about making claims for the supernatural. By definition, something that is supernatural is not of the natural universe. http://www.dictionary.com

Yes. Why? Because I have reason to believe this. What is your reason for believing in a god? I’d love to hear it. And what is your reason based on?

It is also possible and not possible for me to truly know about the existence of pink unicorns.

[please see unicorn reference above]

Could you please detail how you can have a relationship with an invisible being?

Oh! Don’t give me that! It’s not about what we’re talking about either. The last time I checked, it was about fearing and hating death.

mnkbdky

If you go back and check you will see that you said, "or." Nevertheless, let's deal with the new one.

This falls prey to the same objection. Becaue you have "or" the statement can be broken into two statements and results in what was pointed out in my last post.

Now, when "and" is used it also falls victim to the objection , namely, self-refutation.

That is, you claim, "you believe that you should only believe things if you have evidence and reason."

But what is your evidence to believe this? You may have reasons, but is there evidence? Therefore, the belief fails its own criterion for being acceptable to believe.

They certainly do not exist on earth. Do I know they don't exist someplace else in the universe? No, I don't know that. In order to know that I would have to have knowledge of everything that exists in the universe. I don't have that knowledge. Do you know they don't exist?

Let's get some definitions then.

Now when you say, "you would first need to know everything that is natural" before I "could claim that something is of a supernatural origin or nature", which definition of natural and supernatural are you using?

Let S plus a number stand for Supernatural and the corresponding definition numbered under it. (e.g. S1=Of or relating to existence outside the natural [i.e., material] world.)

And let N plus a number stand for Natural and the corresponding definition numbered under it. (e.g, N2=Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment [i.e. the material world]).

You could be saying, "before you could claim that something is S1 you would first need to know everything that is N2."

Why think this? I don't know everything that is N2, yet I can still recognize that the content of thoughts are S1. That is, I can know that the content of thoughts are not material things and not have a exhaustive knowledge of every material thing.

Perhaps, you mean this. "Before you could claim that something is S2, you would first need to know everthing that is N3." This claim seems to be true. But I don't see how this hurts the theist. When the theist says God is supernatural they do not mean S2. That is, God is not a violation of natural law.

Rather they mean S1. God is not part of the material world. So when you plug S1 into the objection you get, "Before you could claim that something is S1, you would first need to know everthing that is N3."

But why would someone need to know all the laws of nature (e.g. the law of gravity, thermodynamics, quantum theory, etc.) in order to know that something isn't material. It does seem to me that someone needs to know all those laws to know if something is material. So, I don't see why the would need to know those law to know something is immaterial.

Now, if I were to go on and give every combination that would take a long time. So, I will hand it over to you and you can tell me which definitions of S and N you are using.

Here you seem to be saying, "If it can be detected, it is N2. Again - I was talking about making claims for the S1. By definition, something that is S1 is not N2."

This is true, S1 is not N2. But why do I need to know everything that is N2 in order to know something is S1. Don't I merely have to know what material is and immaterial is in order to know that one is not the other? That is, I know that a tree T is not a car C. But I don't have to know every type of tree T in order to know that a car C is not a tree T.

That is, I do not have to know every T to know that C is not T. I merely need to know what a tree is and what a car is in order to tell the difference. The same applies to S1 and N2. I do not need to know every N2 to know that S1 is not N2.


Perhaps I am a machine or robot that merely responds to input. Do you think machines or robots think in the same way humans do?

Whether I believe in God or not is irrelavent. People claim to have experiences of God. Some base their belief that God exists on that experience. The reason for believing is and is based on that experience. They need nothing more.


Do you think it is impossible to have a relationship with an invisible being? If so, according to your own criterion, you must have complete knowledge.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

In the last post I said,

There is a critical typo in the above statement. What I meant to say was this,

It does not seem to me that someone needs to know all the law of nature in order to know that something is material. So, I do not see why one would need to know all the laws of nature in order to know something is immaterial.

Sorry, if there are any more typos, that make the statement hard to understand or contradictory, please let me know in order that I may clarify.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
A small mistake in wording. I’m not a super-genius. I can’t think of everything, or see every tiny mistake before I post.

Yes or no? Do you have a reason for you believe in a god concept? If yes, what is your reason?

Without reason or evidence for your beliefs, there is - essentially - not much left but blind faith, or an unfounded conclusion on something that couldn’t be explained rationally [at that moment].

As I stated above. Without evidence or reason for a belief, what do you have? What could you have without reason or evidence for your beliefs?

How do you know if pink unicorns exist on Earth or not? There are still many uncharted areas on our planet. You’re jumping to conclusions. And just because we can’t see them, that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, right? This same line of reasoning could apply to your god concept. And just because something could exist, does not mean that it does exist.

I don’t know.

Is this your strategy? When ever I bring up a question or a point you try to take my statements out of context, or go on a rant about defining words (word play). It’s starting to get on my nerves, and I sincerely wish that you would stop it.

Okay – Fine - I’ll play it your way: These are the definitions I’m using for the words natural and supernatural.

Supernatural
--- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world [universe].

Natural
--- Present in or produced by nature.

I chose the first definition (the most common sense and basic definition) from each list found at the http://www.dictionary.com website.

A long time ago, some civilizations thought that an earthquake was a supernatural event. Why? Because they did not know how to explain earthquakes naturally. Are earthquakes supernatural because they believed them to be? No. If they had complete knowledge of the natural universe, they would not need to resort to conclusions based on faith in supernatural concepts. Calling something ‘supernatural’, for centuries, has been the result of not knowing how to explain something naturally. And with complete knowledge of the natural universe, you would be qualified to know, for a fact, what is natural, and what is not of the natural universe.

Why did you skip to N2? What made you assume that I would pick N2 over the #1 (most common sense and basic definition) for natural?

The fact that you’re typing out thoughts through your posts is proof that you are thinking. I have evidence and reason to believe that there is a thinking being on the other end of this conversation. Unlike thoughts, a god concept can not be detected, in any way. You can only believe in a god concept, without the backing of reason or evidence.

If “God” is natural, why can’t we detect him/her/it?

Natural
--- Present in or produced by nature.

Because you would be making the same mistake our ancestors made. Without complete knowledge of the natural universe, anything unexplainable could be given a supernatural explanation.

They could. They already have A.I. (artificial intelligence) programs and computers that can process information as fast as a human brain. Maybe...

How do they know that the experience isn’t being cause by the Temporal Lobe in their brain? Is there a way they could test the experience to ensure that it is authentic?

Answering a question with a question. TISK-TISK


And no - It’s not impossible for a person to have a relationship with an invisible being. Crazy people do it all of the time.

mnkbdky

Yes I do believe in God. My reason is that I experience Him, I have a relationship with Him.

Here you are using the word "or" again and not "and".

People should have reasons for their beliefs.

But evidence, which I take to mean something tangible offered as proof, need not exist in order for someone to remain rational or for a belief to be well founded.

So you think,

someone would first need to know everything that is "present in or produced by nature" before they could know if something was "of or related to existence outside the natural world."

Let's take define this a little more since nature is used in the def. of natural and natureal is used in supernatural.

Now according to the first entry on dictionary.com nature means, "The material world and its phenomena."

With that definition you claim is now,

Someone would first need to know "everything that is present in or produced by the material world and its phenomena" before they could know if something was not "of or related to existence outside of what is present in or produce by the material world and its phenomena."

Why think this? Why does someone need to know every material thing in order to know that something is not material? Why would someone need to know everything that material objects produce to know if something is immaterial. Perhaps, they may need to know everything that material objects produce to claim that a material object can or cannot produce immaterial things. However, I don't think they need to know everything a material object can produce to know that something is immaterial.

That conclusion just does not follow. Let's assume someone didn't know that trees produce oxygen. It does not follow that they cannot tell the difference between trees and oxygen.

Also, let's assume that someone does not know that sap is present in trees. It does not follow that they cannot know what sap is. Perhaps, they have seen sap in a jar. Knowing the origin of something is not required to know that it exists.

Your problem is that you keep using different definition of supernature. This is called the falacy of equivocation.

In that last statement you are using supernatural to mean cause by some super power or deity, not "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world [universe]." No early civilization believed that earthquakes were not part of the material world. They believed they were caused by supernatural beings or beings that had great powers, power beyond what humans have.

This is a tough fallacy to avoid, even professional philosophers fall into its trap.

Knowing that something is immaterial or that something has incredible powers is different than trying to explain the origin of events.

I don't think the theist would say you cannot detect him/her/it. They would that you merely haven't detected him/her/it and that they have.

They may not know this. But how do you know that all of this is not a dream. That some evil demon is causing you to hallucinate or imagine all your physical surroundings. You don't. You trust your senses, which is not unreasonable. The same should apply to the theist. He or she trusts his or her senses and there experience of God. They are no different than you trusting in your experience or senses to conclude that there is a material world.

If it is not impossible to experience an invisible being, then it is possible. If it is possible, then it could be actual. If it is actual, then they are not crazy.

You must give the person their epistemic right. For you do not know if they are not experiences it. You cannot say their belief is unfounded, because you do not know if it is or not.

That is all I am saying.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
- please read the entire post before you respond -
How do you know that you’re not just having a relationship with yourself? It’s all based on faith, isn’t it?

A “divine experience” could have many causes. They could be coincidence, they could be caused physically by you [without you knowing], or it could all be in your head - and so on. Is it not possible that your divine experiences could be given a materialistic explanation later, in the future, as technology develops? How did you conclude that your “experience with Him” was truly an experience with a deity?

Don’t forget about the flip side of that coin. Just because something is possible, does not mean that it has to be real or true. The existence of pink unicorns is also possible.

Some civilizations did believe that earthquakes were caused by something that was not of the material universe, in the same way that you believe our universe was created by something that is not of the material universe.

I didn’t say “immaterial”. I said “supernatural”. Now you’re trying to change words on me.

According to you, your god is not material, correct? He can not be detected through our science, nor can he be seen by the naked eye, correct? If the only way your god can be detected is through your mind, then he either lives in your imagination, or he is apart of a supernatural realm.

Are earthquakes and hailstorms caused by supernatural agents? No. And how do we know? Because we have the science and technology to give them a naturalistic explanation. You’re doing almost the exact same thing that people many years ago did when they assumed that earthquakes and hailstorms were caused by supernatural agents. You have an experience... you can’t explain it... “It must be because of a divine creator!" If you had complete knowledge of the natural world, you would know, for a fact, without the assistance of religious faith, that your experience was indeed divine.

And if everything around us is natural, what logical reasons would we have for believing in the supernatural? Just because a few books, that anyone with a little spare time and imagination could have written, say divine things happened in the past, does not necessarily mean that they did. Why believe secular history books then? Because they don’t make claims for a world that can only be believed, and not seen.

You’re right. I don’t know, in the same way that you don’t know if a god exists or not. But you still believe... why? Believing in something that I can see is totally different from believing in magical deities that [most likely] live in my mind.

If I went on a job interview and said that I could type 300 words per minute, would it be up to me or the person interviewing me to prove that I could type 300 words per minute? It’s a simple question that requires a very simple answer.