Mota's premise seems to be that perhaps God has reveled his objective Truth to us, but we are unable to comprehend it due to our subjectivity. While it is logically possible for a deity to work in "mysterious" ways that, to our limited senses, are indistinguishable from chance, it seems to me like a last ditch effort to find justification for a philosophy that has no evidence to support it.
And if it is in terms we can understand, subjectivity remains, faith remains intuitive but unsubstantiated, and we have no other way of discerning objective truth.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Mota's premise seems to be that perhaps God has reveled his objective Truth to us, but we are unable to comprehend it due to our subjectivity. While it is logically possible for a deity to work in "mysterious" ways that, to our limited senses, are indistinguishable from chance, it seems to me like a last ditch effort to find justification for a philosophy that has no evidence to support it.And if it is in terms we can understand, subjectivity remains, faith remains intuitive but unsubstantiated, and we have no other way of discerning objective truth.
Which begs the question, "Why would an omniscient being, who definitionally knows the limits of reason, disseminate objective truth in such an unclear way?"
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to answer that?
Eh, maybe, maybe not. The idea is that if he gave us objective truth but only a subjective prism through which to observe it, the objective truth part is worthless...or at best unrecognized. So if we assume a creator-deity for the sake of the argument, it would mean that the deity either doesn't want us to be able to ascertain objective truth or there was some very poor planning. Or some other race is "chosen" and we aren't.
It gets pretty nutty with trying to work it out logically, and steps dangerously toward paradox. Best not to think of such things, imo, fun though they may be.
before, i used to be scared and intimidated by not having the answers to things. now,{as long as the thing doesnt concern my well being directly or those of others or direct emotional attachements} after accepting it, i find it refreshing, not having to question everything, wonderous and one of the main things which makes us get up in the morning utside of duty. mystery is always nice, if you arent obsessed with uncovering everything.
hold on...
isn't the "lets assume God exists" argument against the nature of the thread?
Isn't the point that it is impossible to know if he does? Questioning the motives of a non-existant being is rather futile...
and lets be honest "God doesn't exist" is a much more satisfactory answer than "God works in mysterious ways", so, if we are going to make assumptions about the things we cannot verify (again, for some reason people seem to think non-falsifiability is mysterious and amazing) shouldn't we be making the most likely assumptions?
Why would god do X? pobably better (and more interesting imho) to ask, why do people think X is attributable to God?
Originally posted by inimalist
hold on...isn't the "lets assume God exists" argument against the nature of the thread?
Isn't the point that it is impossible to know if he does? Questioning the motives of a non-existant being is rather futile...
and lets be honest "God doesn't exist" is a much more satisfactory answer than "God works in mysterious ways", so, if we are going to make assumptions about the things we cannot verify (again, for some reason people seem to think non-falsifiability is mysterious and amazing) shouldn't we be making the most likely assumptions?
Why would god do X? pobably better (and more interesting imho) to ask, why do people think X is attributable to God?
People need something to blame. Also, a god gives people a perceived power over the things in their lives that are out of their control.
I believe that humans don't like the answer "I don't know". It is comforting to think that all things can be known, and troubling to think that there is something beyond our ability to ever know.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People need something to blame. Also, a god gives people a perceived power over the things in their lives that are out of their control.I believe that humans don't like the answer "I don't know". It is comforting to think that all things can be known, and troubling to think that there is something beyond our ability to ever know.
I agree, though entire volumes could be written on the social/psychologocal/evolutionary purposes for God and religion.
Its essentially what lead me to ask the question. Once we assume that God exists or not, it isn't a question of "I don't know" but of rationalizing the current state of the world under those views. Assuming God exists does not answer anything about why people can't accept the answer "I don't know", but in fact changes the conversation to talking about God, which coincidently enough, just lets christians have a pulpit to propogandize from. Much like our numerous creationism and geocentrism threads.
Originally posted by inimalist
hold on...isn't the "lets assume God exists" argument against the nature of the thread?
Isn't the point that it is impossible to know if he does? Questioning the motives of a non-existant being is rather futile...
and lets be honest "God doesn't exist" is a much more satisfactory answer than "God works in mysterious ways", so, if we are going to make assumptions about the things we cannot verify (again, for some reason people seem to think non-falsifiability is mysterious and amazing) shouldn't we be making the most likely assumptions?
Why would god do X? pobably better (and more interesting imho) to ask, why do people think X is attributable to God?
Against the original intent of the thread, maybe, but we had diverted to a slightly different question: if a God exists, how would he impart objective truth to us and/or why would he bother if we can't perceive it?
But I agree. It's a large logical jump to begin with.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Against the original intent of the thread, maybe, but we had diverted to a slightly different question: if a God exists, how would he impart objective truth to us and/or why would he bother if we can't perceive it?
but, for people who claim to have the privilage of knowing the intentions of God, those aren't I don't know questions. I don't see it as a slightly different question, but an entirely different issue.
In this, it is making the logical argument that God, should he have created life, is a bumbling idiot. He didn't make people able to understand him, he isn't able to impart objective knowledge to people, why would he even make people without the ability to know things objectively etc. All things that logically disprove the who omnipotent and omniscence concepts
like, I agree. I think the found empirical evidence shows that God probably didn't create things, and if he did there was certainly no inteligence in his designs. However, comming up with an assumed answer is nothing close to not knowing the answer. And christians/whoever will always have memes to throw around to counter any logical argument. Saying "Why would God..." might seem like a logical and fool proof question to you, but to a christian, it is an opening for preacing; "This is why God would..."
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But I agree. It's a large logical jump to begin with.
thats not even my point. I'm really interested in discussing the cognitive dissonance associated with uncertainty, and how that leads people to create patterns and stories. I'm really uninterested in hearing a christian yet again describe unfalsifiability as msyterious as if it actually is a valid argument. I'd rather not participate in an excersize of special pleading...
again...
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThus the source of Einstein's famous, "God does not play dice with the universe." He did not like the Uncertainty Principle, a pillar of quantum mechanics.
I believe that humans don't like the answer "I don't know". It is comforting to think that all things can be known, and troubling to think that there is something beyond our ability to ever know.
Originally posted by Mindship
Thus the source of Einstein's famous, "God does not play dice with the universe." He did not like the Uncertainty Principle, a pillar of quantum mechanics.
Ya, I don't like that ether. Too many people use it as an excuse to say (Insert absurdity here) is true because of the Uncertainty Principle.
Originally posted by inimalist
but, for people who claim to have the privilage of knowing the intentions of God, those aren't I don't know questions. I don't see it as a slightly different question, but an entirely different issue.In this, it is making the logical argument that God, should he have created life, is a bumbling idiot. He didn't make people able to understand him, he isn't able to impart objective knowledge to people, why would he even make people without the ability to know things objectively etc. All things that logically disprove the who omnipotent and omniscence concepts
like, I agree. I think the found empirical evidence shows that God probably didn't create things, and if he did there was certainly no inteligence in his designs. However, comming up with an assumed answer is nothing close to not knowing the answer. And christians/whoever will always have memes to throw around to counter any logical argument. Saying "Why would God..." might seem like a logical and fool proof question to you, but to a christian, it is an opening for preacing; "This is why God would..."
thats not even my point. I'm really interested in discussing the cognitive dissonance associated with uncertainty, and how that leads people to create patterns and stories. I'm really uninterested in hearing a christian yet again describe unfalsifiability as msyterious as if it actually is a valid argument. I'd rather not participate in an excersize of special pleading...
again...
😂
Interesting points. I misunderstood you, is all. But thanks for clarifying. It's a refreshing way of viewing the problem of subjectivity from a religious standpoint.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, I don't like that ether. Too many people use it as an excuse to say (Insert absurdity here) is true because of the Uncertainty Principle.
Oh, absolutely. Quantum mechanics is rife with abuse from non-scientists trying to justify their beliefs. There's a lecture I heard once that explains how quantum mechanics doesn't really justify anything supernatural, and fits perfectly well into a causal materialistic setting. Lost the link, but I have the name of the guy somewhere. I'll try to find it.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...Oh, absolutely. Quantum mechanics is rife with abuse from non-scientists trying to justify their beliefs. There's a lecture I heard once that explains how quantum mechanics doesn't really justify anything supernatural, and fits perfectly well into a causal materialistic setting. Lost the link, but I have the name of the guy somewhere. I'll try to find it.
eat I can't wait.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I’ve never understood in general why it seems so bad to not know the answer. What I mean is that for those of faith they generally believe that their “book” has all the answers when in reality it does not; it has teachings but no answers.
A powerful statement has been made in this quote, and you need to elaborate on such. Bring life to your perspective! Refrain from making "blanket statements." Yes, I am being critical, but I am not being unfair. Level with me; help me understand.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I see so many different versions and views on the same piece of scripture and because it is the way that it is written people must come up with an answer, it seems that they can not go without one.
A powerful statement again! But you need to put things into perspective, young man. The end of this quote, leaves the audience uninformed. Communicating with persons who agree with you is one thing. Perhaps, elaboration is not necessary? You need to think about other members of the forum when make such statements. This quote, should have been followed with: "For example...."
Originally posted by Da Pittman
This also applies to other theories such as creation of life, other life in the universe. This is one of the things that appeals to me about science is that it strives to answer questions and it has no problems with saying that “We don’t know”, we have a theory on how it happens but we are not sure.
Don't you understand, that all man, have "bias" views? And that, it is only the will of man to control them, in order to be as objective as possible? Naturalists are not Saints and/or victims! I understand your point; but it applies to all man, regardless of views. Humans are humans!
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Your thoughts or have I totally confused everyone.
I doubt, that you have confused anyone. All understand. Good post!