Alan N

When I was putting my thoughts down, I was thinking the 'collective' set of knowledge. I see how you took it as a mechanical/borg assertion...my bad.

I really appreciate you laying out your thoughts in regards to my question(s). The whole reason for my post in the first place is that I honestly thought that your reply to Sue was a bit too pointed. My apologies if I took it wrong.

Haverbob, if I'm always operating on the 128th presupposing the first 127 have been provided, how would I ever know it? How would you ever have the capacity to break out of 'what you've been taught'? Wouldn't my inclinations towards systems of belief all be predicated on a prior system, of which I would not be able to recognize? What was it that allowed you to process the book you mention in the manner that you did and have the break through that you did? How do you disassociate with all you know? These are honest questions Haverbob. I am curious to this thinking, because it is not far from my own...we just happen to be on different sides of the fence. What was it (not just the book) that put you on that side of the fence?

Thanks again for your post.

haverbob

Matt. I like the stuff you have been saying (once I figured out the complications). Do you know of or like what I am saying?? Just curious. Am I making a mistake by putting things in a more simplistic fashion?? Am I missing critical issues that require a more complex explanation?? (I mean that, because that "could" be the case). Maybe I'm doing something wrong on this thread (maybe even the board itself). Why does reality always seem to come down to a complicated theorum that we create?? ( or maybe our philosophy teachers or books or science books create). Please explain.

Sue Sponte

Expanding on this concept that all beliefs are merely what were taught.

Setting aside editorializing or preaching, what is taught primarily are the tools for reaching your own conclusion. Learning to read, analyze, and think critically and logically is not being told what to believe, but rather being given the tools to form your own conclusions based on the information you receive.

Some beliefs (such as religion, in my view), demand that the answer be reached first, and then the subject work backwards from that conclusion to justify the result. Thus, the entire process is fundamentally flawed, as it is designed with a fixed conclusion.

My experience has not been that Christians have objectively reviewed the information available to them and then reached a conclusion that it is the most reasonable scenario. To the contrary, they have the conclusion, then attempt to justify that conclusion through innumerable methods. The most common of those methods is to set reason aside. More complicated methods include challenging the CONCEPT of reason, suggesting that it is the equivalent of faith.

I also firmly distinguish deism from Christianity. The former is a belief solely in the existence of a higher power, not an adoption of a particular subset of beliefs created by humans with respect to that higher power. As a pure theoretical matter, deism, if predicated solely on a conclusion with respect to the unknowable, does not rest on information which can be rejected or accepted. If done with an acceptance that the answer is unknowable, I cannot necessarily fault the conclusion as one outside the bounds of reason.

Christianity, on the other hand, is predicated on a subset of information subject to critical examination. Much of the information contained in the bible is fancy, yet Christians accept it without reason. The reaction of Christians to evolution, for example, or any other number of purportedly sacred "facts" in the bible which are clearly at odds with the information available, convinces me that Christians are not objectively analyzing the information to reach a conclusion, but instead are seeking to disregard information in order to preserve the conclusion.

haverbob

Alot of good, reasonable points. I think I need to clarify.

That's perfectly reasonable from your angle or the commonly held angle. Hmmm...., but your development is critically dependent upon which tools you are given, right?. Not to be confused with "opportunity", I'm talking about a higher level, if you can see what I mean . Give people paint brushes and they paint things. Give them building tools and they build things. Give them guns and they kill things. So people's behavior and even belief system are highly affected by the tool that is given to them. That's kind of all that I was saying. When looked at from that angle, alot more of our actions look like it came from Mommy, Daddy, Scientists, books.....then previously thought. Could there be another tool besides evidence? How could we ever believe that when to do so requires evidence? So one could logically say, "while it's theoretically possible for there to be an alternate tool, besides evidence, for arriving at the truth, we could never know it because to do so requires evidence". So it IS possible, but it will never be possible for us to perceive it.

The "possible" part is what the theists like to focus on because they "want" there to be a God. Then throw in some "faith" and alot of self interest worrying what's going to happen when they die, and you've got your mainstream theist. Tah dah, that's how they do it. Do I agree?? Of course not. I wish they actually knew what faith was. They don't. They think the bible meant "just believe in God, don't question". Faith was supposed to mean being open to, understanding of, and accepting of whatever happens to you in this life, and perhaps the next (I won't go there). They just "F" ed it up.
Generally solid statement. One small small edit. Can't speak for all theists (and I don't think I'd want to) but alot of them only attempt to justify it because you asked. In their minds, faith should never have to be justified, it's beyond the concept of justification (in their view). So that's why they ignore your evidence.
That's fine. This is a philosophy board, I'm not here to argue the best version of God, merely God or no God, that's all. I can't fault deism nor would I try. In fact, I can't fault or blame atheists either. They have their points, I just think a see a few additional, non conventional points, that change the conclusion for me
. Well that's certainly true. Let me throw something buy you. You will need to read between the lines a little or think deeply. If you were brought up a theist and you "believed" at the time, then something caused you to disbelieve. However, at that moment you were not actually disbelieving in God, you were disbelieving in your "description" of God. If you really think deeply, you'll see that very minor but very important distinction. So who could blame you, you're probably right. One can even logically go so far as to say that ANY description of God actually blocks one from experiencing or sensing God because God could never be put in to words, only pointed to or alluded to at best. So words provide an inaccurate illusion which blocks God. A blind man (all his life) asks me to describe "green". So I do my best and say "it's like a beautiful symphony", knowing he can hear. Then he miraculously gains site and one day I see him and I say "so now you know what the color green is", and he says "yes, I just heard some of it this morning". So he still doesn't see green and it's my fault. That's what words do to God.
Well there is a reason for most theists, it's called "because I want for there to be a God". Not to be too technical, but "I want" is a reason or involves reason. That's not my reason, but it's the reason for most theists.
What most Christians don't understand is that the bible is a figurative book (doesn't mean untrue), and it was supposed to be that way. You only describe the undescribable through figurative speech. For example, this silly interpretation that the Garden of Eden was an actual "place" that we were kicked out of. That's ridiculous. If that were the case, then we have already returned to the Garden of Eden. We've covered enough of the earth. The Garden of Eden was supposed to represent a "state of mind" or a view or perception of life that was subsequently altered by the supposed "apple". The apple might even indirectly represent this "system of evidence" that we've spoken of. In that case, this "system of evidence" switches from something that we believe is inherent to us, to something that has been added to us. When people read the bible through this kind of lens, it becomes a whole different book. Best I can tell you for right now.

haverbob

Great question. You start first by identifying or distinguishing which thoughts are really yours and which ones have been provided. It's the realization of how much is not your own that starts this process. Then after identification, one can keep the thought given or create an alternative. Then it becomes your own thought because you have sufficiently questioned it. I know you will say that we already do this, but let me give you an example for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Most people think they perform charity or sometimes even risk their life because of this inherent spirit in humans for altruism. Altruism is not an inherent in humans. Selfishness is inherent in humans. You'll see that the first time a child is asked to share a toy with another child. Altruism had to be taught to you, and therefore does not really constitute a concept that is your own. Don't get me wrong, I love charity and altruism and thank God I and others behave that way (I guess). But there is always self interest hiding underneath of those things. It is hidden because our society tells us that altruism is good and those that practice altruism are "good people", and that you are doing that simply because you are a "good person", no other reason. That teaching stops us from looking further in to our motives. So people that practice altruism are merely fulfilling their desire to be "good people" or "correct injustice", the things we were taught were desirable and therefore it makes us "happy" to do so (the frequently hidden but REAL motive behind our actions). So we are still selfish like the child who doesn't share at first, we have just refined our selfishness in order to call ourselves "good people" or "feel good about ourselves" or "live up to our ideals of justice or injustice", or "buy a ticket to heaven"....or whatever. It's still all about self interest, it's just a new, taught, and refined version of self interest. Basically, an illusion, and an illusion that is not your own, it was given to you.
A system of words that attempted to point to concepts. I have no problems with "words", at least I better not or I can stop writing right now. Words are a useful tool, but they get less and less useful the deeper or more abstract one gets. I am (or maybe was) basically a cynic. This guy caught me off guard because he hit me right off the bat with cynicism when I expected he was going to give me the same old "goodie goodie" stuff. This guy never attempts to sell anything or tell you what's what, he tells you what is not instead of what is what. I found that unique. It just keeps on hitting you with examples of common illusions hoping that one (any one of them) gets you to stop staring at and questioning his finger and instead look at the food he's pointing to. That's all. Many others do the same thing in other books. So the book itself really means nothing, but what it points to means everything.
Excellent question !!! That book does not lead everyone towards theism (some have reported taking up Buddhism instead, some outright hate the book. ) He just simply feels that God is sensed in a natural way when our illusions drop. Not everybody agrees and it seems as though he doesn't care. He just cares about what he calls "waking you up" so that you suddenly see the food instead of the finger that is pointing at it. At that point, he says he doesn't know what will happen to you, only you know that. I, like he, sensed this natural God thingee or whatever (words are bad here). At best, maybe I could use the words creator, loving, and ultimate purpose and plan, but maybe that's even too much. But others may not. Now there is certainly the possibility that I was "predisposed" to reach this God conclusion as is he. Very possible, actually maybe I might say that is probable. Doesn't matter to me. Blue is my favorite color, but when I look at the sky, that doesn't mean it's blue because of my "predispostion" for the color blue. Sorry, I know examples can sometimes be a little fleeting or seem like avoidance of hard core logic, but sometimes that's the best that can be done in certain situations

mosaic

We might as well say that because neurons have to fire in our brains before we can do anything, we're selfish.

haverbob

Good point. So why do neurons fire in our brain in a way that trys to gain our happiness?? I don't care about whether it's neurons flying, God making them....Who cares?? Same point. The "nuerons firing in our brains" explanation only means that, that's as far as you or most would like to take that logic train. Understandable. This stuff can be quite complex and painful, but at the same time, it can be quite simple in that it requires the removal of a few concepts rather than the addition. But the removal can prove to be quite difficult or painful to alot of people for varied reasons.

mattdamore

Haverbob,

Thanks for your uplifting remarks. I'll just point out certain areas in your posts that I either find unclear or am in disagreement over.

I don't think I agree with this. I think ample evidence is given in the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Of course, seperate threads would need to be opened for the discussion of those particular issues.

A couple of points. I don't believe that God is timeless now. I believe that he WAS timeless prior to His creative decree to instantiate the universe and that He is NOW temporal due to His relation to creation. I don't think this would destroy the doctrine of immutability. If you are willing to discuss the coherence of this topic, I'd be obliged.

Also, in what way to you think that God can't be explained. I see here that you have equated the essence of its unexplainability with the metaphysically impossible notion of an infinite regression. I don't think the analogy holds, because God (especially if you believe He exists) is metaphysically possible and, as it is, metaphysically actual, according to the Christian/Theist presupposition. We also have revealed, special revelation revealing to us various 'explainations' about this God. So, I just think that you need to explain what you mean when you say 'explain'.

I think you need some reasons for this sound-bite.

I don't see how saying you have no evidence becomes an antinomy to the disjunction of believing or not believing. The latter is the state in which the person is in regarding the issue. But the saying that one lacks evidence is the state in and of itself, within the context of the belief/no belief rubric, but a reason provided for the non-belief. So, I don't believe the saying that one lacks evidence is an extra state that you can ascribe to a person taking a stand on the existence/non-existence of God.

But is not the truth that which corresponds to the facts of reality?

I know you have other posts below the one in which I am responding to now, so I apologize if the flow of you full argument was made evidence in those posts, and I only had a chance to respond to the birth pains of your argument. Maybe, at a further date, I can get to those posts. Or you can point out issues in this post and we can go from there.

Sue Sponte

I'm not sure I follow your discussion, Matt, so let me ask a few clarifying questions.

How is a presupposition evidence that something exists?

Why does a presupposition make something more or less possible?

This seems hopelessy circular.

I can't understand semantically what this is supposed to be saying.

haverbob

No. truth is different from fact. Reality has nothing to do with facts. Facts are merely our meager explanation of the truth and a very useful tool (I use it all the time, in fact, I would be a commercial sponser for facts, even if I didn't get paid. I would say "and I use it too, and it works for ME", in the commercial. Kind of like the old Irish Spring commercials "Manly yes, but I like it too". But that's all they are (facts). They are useful tools of predicting what will happen next. That's not truth. Facts are merely the logical conclusion of the given system of measure. Name any fact you want about a river. Is that the river itself, (truth of the river)??? Of course not. It's just a description of the river and a prediction of how it's going to behave. That is the fact of a river but not the river itself (or the truth of the river).