The new Church

10,000 years? Man we've only been reasoning for that long.
AND WE HAVE NO REIGN
We THINK we do.. but we have nothing but our arrogant perception of
our self worth.
All those who say we destroy the earth fail to realise that 95%of all species that have ever been WERE GONE before we showed up.
Exterminated by mother nature and a newtonian reality [rocks]

And that no amount of meddling will destroy the earth.
Just modify the biosphere.

We may modify it so much that we 'go away' [but we surely will leave first]
but other life will replace us. Bet on it.
We are but a 'rational life face' this biosphere has evolved.
That is what the biosphere is for...
We can easily be replaced.
Personally occam thinks moles and beavers would make a far better raw material for reasoning minds than we primates.
More contemplative and far less violent

Occam

 

well i agree there .

 

it was more intended for the bible thumper or religion in general crowd.

 

Edit
Sorry,, for harshness
It is your inherent right to post where u want

Occam

 

The bottom line is that just declaring a certain proposition to be a dogma doesn't make it true. Even one dogma is one too many. And also, it is absolutley irrelevant whether a certain dogma "jives with your beliefs" or "is consistent with your feelings." Having some vague intuition against an intelligent designer does not disprove his existence to any extent. The fact is, the argument from design is the best thing theists have going for them. Strictly speaking, it is scientific, and it deserves far more consideration than you are giving it by brushing it off.

 

Common sense

Exactly..Occam never said it was true.
The 'bottom line' actually IS
He said there were no contradictions known to humans.
A good start..no?
Lack of observable contradiction is one of the fundmental
qualities of the human label..'fact'

Of course it 'jives' with occams' beliefs.
If it did not..he would not post it.
Would einstein have published relativity theory if it did'nt
'jive' with his beliefs?

The 'vague intuition' was FOR an intelligent designer
Maybe you should read the posts again?

Occam

As for labeling a position a 'dogma' well, church and dogma
seems to carry some sort of 'weight'.
People are more likely to comment if it is called a dogma of a church.
This is called 'attention strategy'

 

The flying spaghetti monster does too

 

aye what is the sense in setting the parameters if you aren't looking to find an answer--

Why is this? Aren't you guilty of setting the parameters of *** arbitrarily, too?

All pressumptions aside, the data to confirm is NOT out of reach, NECESSARILY.

If you set the nature of *** to be 'beyond human abillity to deny', then the nature of *** will be 'beyond human abillity to deny'. Otherwise, it is completely within our reach-- or not.

Given the lack evidence of ***, I don't 'know' or 'believe' in its existence. Thats just probability. You value probability dont you? Sure, you cannot say for certain that *** exists or does not exist, but you can make a probable conclusion based on your own experiences. Conclusions that are reliable enough to base your larger belief system around (world view, morals, vocation, etc...)

I would not, for you, stoop to directly ask if you thought latent emotional precursors led to this intuitive leap--- I assume from what i have seen you say for before that you are beyond that. but i wanna present that, at least.

What of this intuition? Is it supernatural (beyond human perception/comprehension, while maintaining the integrity of the tenet of the Church of Eternal Reality)?

Could intuition be the result of the brain taking in stimuli subconsciously and then affecting the conscious awareness? If this were measurable shouldnt it be scrutinized as well. Should intuition be held above empiricism in your non-absolutist framework?

I suppose in all of this I either fail to see the significance of a *** that has no effect in the percievable reality or falsely pressume the value you put in ***. You have this intuitive knowing, but what effect does this have on the rest of your life? What need in a value system is there for a *** whose existence affects naught?

 

I am weary. Several nonsensical and time-consuming paragraphs have failed to assert the obvious truth that *** is a sandwich with salami, olives and cheese.

 

Occam, your dogma is sexy, but it is a dogma
My dogma is:
A spiritual non bodied (not dependent of any universe laws) entity has the ability to create material stuff and laws just by 'thinking' about them. this shit is real, and creates reality.

And my dogma is bigger than yours

 

Spirit
Wether a being has a body or not..It is an organised structure.
An organised structure requires laws that enable the structure
to maintain temporal/functional continuity.
ANY place there are laws is part of reality.
Yes a being may indeed be able to modify and alter laws and
material 'stuff' using thought alone.
Reality is the term to describe any phenomena and the arena
that allows phenomena to happen.
A being may be able to 'extend' reality. [from within it]
But reality ,,,having always existed.
cannot be created.

Reality IS EVERYTHING.. yours is a [set] within that.
The term 'outside/beyond reality' is a logical contradiction
without meaning..

PS.. As the universe or observable universe[same thing]
is not EVERYTHING.
Then it is but a set of REALITY..which IS.
there are no universal laws.. There are the laws of reality.
Occam makes this destinction again as so many believe
what we can see [out to 14billion ly's with hubble]
the observable universe
Is the total of ALL there is..
This idea is absurd.

Occam

 

Read my dogma again

 

Spirit



Occam

 

Thumontico

Parameters are set to make answers easier to find. No specific answer is
being sought. The dogma states a premis that occam can work from
that does not contradict reality.
While a created reality is a premis taken from mythical religious belief
that truncates the list of options to understanding reality. Without
any obvious reason to do so other than making reality fit a myth
that many desire to be true.
Aslo.. structures within reality have life cycles.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this can be applied to the
'meta-system' called REALITY.
A 'created reality' causes many logical contradictions before we even
find out if it is true. [infinite regression]
An Eternal Reality results in NO contradictions.

Occam set parameters only on reality. And they were that there are none.
Reality is EVERYTHING. [the term outside reality is meaningless]
And reality IS ETERNAL. [without temporal parameter]
The only parameter occam set on *** is that if it is real,
it exists in reality.

Sorry, should have said "not available to occam
at this time."

Re-write
The proposition "a *** directs the part of reality we call the observed
universe" cannot be answered by occam for the data to confirm it
is not available to occam. And the data to deny it is beyond occams abillity to procure [a status he holds along with all other human beings at this time]

That is answered by the 'Da' [russian for yes] at the end of his post.
ALL occams belief [not knowledge] is based on probabillity only.
But it is a conclusion on the existance or non existance of a thing.
Not on wether that thing has any connection to morals or vocation.
If the observable universe is directed..Then occam need only utilise the tools that *** allowed in that direction. Reason and Heart.
Or do u suggest human beings are not capable of having a moral code
worth spit without threats and promises from on high?

A maxim occam sometimes uses is that for humanity
Emotion is why we do. Reason is how we do it.
The dogma.. IS because of the desire for answers.
WHAT it is, is a product of reason. When desire enters how
unbiased understanding goes away.

Occam does not recognise the word 'supernatural'
'beyond human perception/comprehension' means just that and no more.
In no way does it mean something is beyond nature, a direct product of the laws of reality or that which is part of reality.
And has zero to do with the dogma. Which deals only with the properties
of reality itself.

It may be just that.
And yes we should.
Empiricism to occam is basically the scientific method.
A powerfull tool.
Intuition, a thing we know little about as u say. Amy be
another such tool.
Occam holds no tool in the path to understanding ABOVE
Should a hammer be held above the saw? Or the screwdriver?
You need many tools to build a sturdy framework.
Can you imagine a house built only with a hammer?

The dogma is not a product of intuitive knowing as explained above.

Mostly it is a statement that our presumption that reality was created
is based on no evidence at all.
And is contradictory.
The dogma was built mostly with reason..the result a thing that sat well with intuition.

Occam does not care if a *** exists or not..
But the more information occam has about reality the more understanding
he can gain. There is no such thing in occams mind called
worthless information about reality or what exists in it.

thanks for the reply thumontico. Had fun answering.

Occam

 

A fact corresponds to the state of affairs. It seems true a priori that the state of affairs is consistent, but consistency alone does not make fact. But you probably already knew that. Anyway, I don't see anything outright contradictory about the concept of God. So, clearly we need some sort of criteria for choosing between two rival theories.

This part of the post was actually directed more against themnax than you. Bu the point is that relying on a psychological state or intuition to determine the truth is not a good method. Now, concerning the vague intuition for the existence of an intelligent designer, the cosmological argument claims to be a priori but is invalid. Hume showed that it is not a priori and Newton really disproved it for the scientific community. However, the design argument never claims to be a priori. It is an inference to the best explanation, and the theists do have some good reasons for claiming that God is a more likely explanation than natural forces. I can't see how such a claim is dogmatic because evidence could come to light that would disprove the claim; if it's not a priori it must be empirical to an extent. Anyway, even if calling the doctrine a "dogma" was an attention-getting strategy, we still can't avoid arguing for it.

You said at the beginning of this thread that the topic was over your head. Now you're convinced of atheism. Now, I'm an atheist too, but the difference is I have reasons for being an atheist. And so, I know that the educated theists have arguments that can't be dismissed so easily. All churches rely on dogmas; only philosophy relies on arguments.

 

CS

If observable non contradictory consistancy is not fact.
What is?
The effects of gravitatonal law Have observable non contradictory consistency. NO example of anything defying that law through an
inconsistancy in the law have ever been observed by humans...
Thus gravity is labeled by humans, a fact.
If u say that is not enough then what else is required to call something fact?
Your agreement?

Nothing contradictory about god.. But one who made reality results in the problem of 'infinte regression'. But u probably have already heard of that [eternal reality does not need to address this problem, for it cannot exist . U want to argue for a more complex premis than is needed to support observed reality?]

So your replies are not about the ideas.. but who they re directed at?

Occam did not 'rely' on intuition..read his posts.
Niether hume or newton adressed the idea of a reality without creation.
One without a beginning or end.
The laws apllicable 'within' reality cannot by us be applied 'to' reality.
we are to uninformed. Show any empirical evidence that the bang
singularity did not have a 'past'

Of course it was. Occam even stated it as attention strategy.. read his posts first before talking,

Occam

 

I agree with your premis occam. I agreed back when I first saw it a while back in a different thread. Not only the conclusion, but the explanation (which is difficult for me to understand a lot the of time, your phrasing....)

The assumption that reality must have been 'created' is a meme that is probably most prevalant in people that have philosophies holding an omnipotent *** for worship. That have been raised with that sort of mindset. These people, from an early age, have it ingrained into them that omnipotence is not only possible, but certain.

I think the existence of the 'omnipotence meme' is just as significant in solidifying their perception, as is the assumption that ALL things have a life cycle [and that reality must have had the initial stage of that pressumed analogy: Birth/Creation.]

Because without omnipotence, the assumption that all things have a given life cycle can't be applied to Reality creation-- no legs.

If Reason and Logic and Inuition are all based on percievable reality [conscious/subconscious], then empiricism should be the method used. You know Reason is reliable. There is no way (at this point) to know Intuition is reliable.

 

I probably can't give you a good definition of "fact", but it's certainly not just consistency with observation claims. Look, the theists belief in God is in no way inconsistent with the observations of anyone. How could it be when God is intangible? But surely it's the case that either God exists or he does not.

Another, better example comes from a debate between Newton and Leibniz concerning absolute vs. relative space. Newton happened to believe in absolute space, but he was keen enough to know that the matter was empirically underdetermined, that is indetermination based on observation alone.

That's just a strawman interpretation of the Cosmological Argument. Theists face no real regress problem.

[quote[Niether hume or newton adressed the idea of a reality without creation.
One without a beginning or end.[/quote]
That's just false (well, the part about Hume anyway) and I can give you the exact paragraph in the Dialogues if you want.

 

Thumontico...
Thats it.. was looking for that exact term.. It was right there
but u needed to say it. Meme.
Occam has gained understanding..thanks.

As to occams phrasing. Imagine occam an eccentric thinker conversing
in a rare carpathian dialect..And u ar an english gentleman.
Some trouble will arise ..no? but can be overcome.
Occam does not hold it against u that u dont speak the true language

Yes.. reason is reliable as far as we can tell.
But let us not forget how many things we as humans have said could
not be/work.
So lets use reason to lay out the plan to find if other ways
to understanding are viable. Intuition may simply be a reasoning process
below consciousnes. Occam can think of many interestion experiment to test this.

Occam

 

CS
Gravity, time, mater, space, entropy exct exct
Are things observable/experienced. [empirical]
'Fact' itself is based on their seemingly invoilable nature, their complete and consistant repeatabillity. AND the lack of ANY observered contradiction to their effects.

Human/Religious ideas of god are human words and concepts only.
Not a shaping of our very epistemology by the effects of reality we
exist in. But a creation/idea in human minds to explain reality..
This does not mean there is no god.
It means of definitions of such a possible thing are SPECULATION

Will take it on your word that newton speculated of an eternal reality.
U are obviously well read in this area, while occam is a generalist
with many many interests.

What was his results/conclusions? [in your words please.]


Occam
PS.. excuse if occam describes terms u know well. Many, do not.
[ie: empiricism]