The Tasteless Man (experience, atheist, faith, God, science)

[(Q)]

This is why the concept of God has remained so seemingly innovative despite that it has been around for at least thousands of years. Theories of 'big bang', 'chaos', etc, will come and go. God can be a pink unicorn, a yellow cyclops, a haze gray jackelope or something entirely different. The concept of God will remain in some form or another.

Your entire post was excellent, a very good read.

Although those philosophies of god have been held for thousands of years, it is only recently that scientific theory has begun to show those long held philosophies are myths, just like invisible pink unicorns. So, in that way, the comparison is valid.

[Paraprakrti]

@Ceridwen

Do you really want me to keep refuting these ideas? It is not so hard. The conclusion will still remain that this man can never be sure and so he must ultimately accept the authority of other's by faith.

Perhaps the brain activity for smelling the food within the mouth is different from smelling it outside the mouth. LOL... on and on we go...

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by (Q)

This is why the concept of God has remained so seemingly innovative despite that it has been around for at least thousands of years. Theories of 'big bang', 'chaos', etc, will come and go. God can be a pink unicorn, a yellow cyclops, a haze gray jackelope or something entirely different. The concept of God will remain in some form or another.

Your entire post was excellent, a very good read.

Although those philosophies of god have been held for thousands of years, it is only recently that scientific theory has begun to show those long held philosophies are myths, just like invisible pink unicorns. So, in that way, the comparison is valid.

Thank you for the compliment...

I have yet to see how the concept of God has been shown to be myth by modern science. Can you please give me an example? Something that irrufutably proves God as a myth, not just some theory.
Also, if what you decide to present as evidence happens to be a theory, then consider whether this theory can support an 'end all', 'final conclusion' for existence itself. If we are ultimately led back to the argument of 'something coming from nothing', in an absolute sense, then please refer back to all my previous posts in refute of this idea.

[Mr Spinkles]

Parapraktri, I think I see two problems: 1) you are misusing the word "faith". 2) you are mischaracterizing what it means to be a skeptic

1) If "faith" means "thinking that something is probably true, based on evidence and logic which indicates it is probably true," then yes, scientists/skeptics definitely have "faith". Based on the logic and evidence, it is far more likely that the T.M. is lacking a fifth sense than that the entire world is in on some looney conspiracy. Is there any way to prove this with a 100% degree of certainty? Of course not. There is no way to prove anything with 100% certainty (there's always a 0.00000000001% chance we're all living in the Matrix or something)....but we can provide evidence that makes us 99.999% certain. If that is your definition of "faith" so be it.

2) Skepticism does not mean "they're all out to get me--it's a conspiracy!!" It means requiring evidence/logic to back up claims. In this analogy, plenty of evidence and logic backs up the claim that other people have taste...but there is ZERO evidence or logic that there is some sort of massive conspiracy to trick the T.M. Skeptics are not big conspiracy buffs.

You say that ultimately we have to "surrender". I don't agree with that. I think ultimately, we have to be honest. Frankly, theists who say God exists with 100% certainty are not being intellectually honest. We cannot possibly "know" anything 100%. The trick is getting as close to 100% as possible with logic and evidence, and being objectively critical about which claims are strongly supported by logic and evidence, and which claims are not. It's not about having faith, it's about using your brain.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Parapraktri, I think I see two problems: 1) you are misusing the word "faith". 2) you are mischaracterizing what it means to be a skeptic

1) If "faith" means "thinking that something is probably true, based on evidence and logic which indicates it is probably true," then yes, scientists/skeptics definitely have "faith". Based on the logic and evidence, it is far more likely that the T.M. is lacking a fifth sense than that the entire world is in on some looney conspiracy. Is there any way to prove this with a 100% degree of certainty? Of course not. There is no way to prove anything with 100% certainty (there's always a 0.00000000001% chance we're all living in the Matrix or something)....but we can provide evidence that makes us 99.999% certain. If that is your definition of "faith" so be it.

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place. Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence. You premise is taking for granted that these things are completely reliable.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

2) Skepticism does not mean "they're all out to get me--it's a conspiracy!!" It means requiring evidence/logic to back up claims. In this analogy, plenty of evidence and logic backs up the claim that other people have taste...but there is ZERO evidence or logic that there is some sort of massive conspiracy to trick the T.M. Skeptics are not big conspiracy buffs.

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

You say that ultimately we have to "surrender". I don't agree with that. I think ultimately, we have to be honest. Frankly, theists who say God exists with 100% certainty are not being intellectually honest. We cannot possibly "know" anything 100%. The trick is getting as close to 100% as possible with logic and evidence, and being objectively critical about which claims are strongly supported by logic and evidence, and which claims are not. It's not about having faith, it's about using your brain.

Well, the concept of God will end up being the inescapable conclusion. You say we can only know anything for sure up to 99 percent. I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent. You can even keep adding zeros, but God is the one (1) that comes before them. So only with God can any percentage of knowledge have any value. If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value. I think that atheists are more or less denying the existence of a personal God. They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God. There are different conceptions of the same truth known as "God". Obviously an atheist is typically not one to entertain the conception of a personal God. At least try to understand the concept on an impersonal level.

[Zero Faith]

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place.

You are correct. Faith in the five proven senses is logically valid -- it can be demonstrated. That's the catch. You want faith in God to be valid, demonstrate how this faith can be used to predict outcomes -- demonstrate its effectiveness.

I can show you, through experiment, how faith in the five senses is different from some lunatic's faith in invisible pink unicorns, and explain why I believe in the former and not in the latter. Can you do the same with faith in God?

Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence.

Of course we do. That is the scientific method. To question a method, you use it on a known quantity and see if the obtained information agrees with what you already know.

You premise is taking for granted that these things are completely reliable.

Nothing is completely reliable. Don't be obtuse.

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

No, we do not. There are two types of faith. One type can be logically supported by demonstrating precedent (I have proven the effectiveness of my vision to read words in the past, because everyone else reads the same words I do. Thus, when I read this new book, I have faith that the words are as I see them). The other type cannot (I have not proven the effectiveness of faith in God because not everyone believes the same as I do, and I cannot explain why).

Well, the concept of God will end up being the inescapable conclusion.

Bull. I've noticed you smugly drop statements like this all the time without supporting them. I suppose that's how you go about converting the masses? Hammering them with the same unsupported, neatly packaged idea over and over until they no longer have the interest to resist?

I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent. You can even keep adding zeros, but God is the one (1) that comes before them. So only with God can any percentage of knowledge have any value.

Says who? This is all nonsense. You're incredibly circular; you presuppose the existence of God (last sentence), then use it to prove that we're wrong in saying God doesn't exists. Know what? You're right. If God exists, then we're wrong in saying that he doesn't. I concede that.

If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value.

Again, you're taking us in circles. God gives all things their value, therefore, if God doesn't exist, all things have no value? That's ridiculous. You can't assume that God exists and then use that as a premise to prove he exists!

I think that atheists are more or less denying the existence of a personal God. They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God.

You have an incredibly narrow-minded view of atheists. We didn't all stare petulently out our windows at a grey, dreary sky and convert because life sucked. A lot of us merely expect evidence to believe in remarkable things. Could you imagine if someone talked down to you and said that you don't believe in aliens because you deny the utopia they could bring us?

[Ceridwen018]

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place. Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence. You premise is taking for granted that these things are completely reliable.

It is alright to take such things for granted in this elaborate metaphor, becasue in real life they are tested for accuracy and preciseness.

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

There is a definite line between 'skeptic' and 'niilist'. Skeptics logically question that which they recognize as being in need of questioning. A nihilist doesn't seem to be able to reason and use logic, becasue they refuse to accept anything.

I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent.

That's not logical. If something has 0% probability, it means it has 0 evidence to back it up, and therefore basically doesn't exist. If something has, say, 76% probability, that means there is evidence to support the claim.

but God is the one (1) that comes before them.

Which is humorous, because the concept of god is very close to 0% probability.

If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value.

I don't understand how they would lose value. Who said they had value in the first place?

They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God.

Well yeah!! Why would a loving god allow pain and suffering??

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place.

You are correct. Faith in the five proven senses is logically valid -- it can be demonstrated. That's the catch. You want faith in God to be valid, demonstrate how this faith can be used to predict outcomes -- demonstrate its effectiveness.

So what you're telling me is that the five senses can be proven by the demonstration of the five senses. Is it necessary for me to point out the obvious flaw in that reasoning?
The sunshine demonstrates that the sun globe exists. Similarly, that anything exists demonstrates the existence of God. God is the reservoir of energy.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

I can show you, through experiment, how faith in the five senses is different from some lunatic's faith in invisible pink unicorns, and explain why I believe in the former and not in the latter. Can you do the same with faith in God?

No, you can't show, through experiment, how faith in the five senses is different from any other type of faith. How can you prove the validity of the senses by the sense themselves? The senses will be producing an experiment that will be producing results that are received by the senses. I hope you are not trying to compare invisible pink unicorns to God. We have only been speaking of God as a concept. In order for that analogy to fit we would have to be arguing, specifically, a personal conception of God and attributes thereof. There is no special concept of "pink unicorn" that I know of.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence.

Of course we do. That is the scientific method. To question a method, you use it on a known quantity and see if the obtained information agrees with what you already know.

That's nice. And now you will prove the senses by the senses.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

No, we do not. There are two types of faith. One type can be logically supported by demonstrating precedent (I have proven the effectiveness of my vision to read words in the past, because everyone else reads the same words I do. Thus, when I read this new book, I have faith that the words are as I see them). The other type cannot (I have not proven the effectiveness of faith in God because not everyone believes the same as I do, and I cannot explain why).

The one type that can be logically supported is based on the premise of the type which cannot. Therefore all faith is essentially the same. This is proven by the fact that you cannot prove the validity of the senses by the senses.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

Well, the concept of God will end up being the inescapable conclusion.

Bull. I've noticed you smugly drop statements like this all the time without supporting them. I suppose that's how you go about converting the masses? Hammering them with the same unsupported, neatly packaged idea over and over until they no longer have the interest to resist?

*yawn*
I notice that you ignore a lot of things. The very reasons we are currently debating are showing how either God or non-existence is the ultimate conclusion. If you accept non-existence then we're done discussing. If you accept God then that is another thing. The word "God" implies a concept. It is not in any way similar to a 'pink unicorn'. The concept God implies is of an existence full in all qualities. At any point that science wants to step up and say that quality comes from non-quality, intelligent people will be here to refute such nonsense. "Nothing" is never observed and therefore must be concluded that when it is said that there is "nothing", it just means that our ability to perceive is imperfect. This is the bottom line.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent. You can even keep adding zeros, but God is the one (1) that comes before them. So only with God can any percentage of knowledge have any value.

Says who? This is all nonsense. You're incredibly circular; you presuppose the existence of God (last sentence), then use it to prove that we're wrong in saying God doesn't exists. Know what? You're right. If God exists, then we're wrong in saying that he doesn't. I concede that.

LOL. I began the paragraph with, "I would say". I think that answers your first question. You may think it is all nonsense. But you take for granted the partial faith you have in existence by use of senses that cannot be proven of themselves.
Actually, only God has the authority to say that He doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value.

Again, you're taking us in circles. God gives all things their value, therefore, if God doesn't exist, all things have no value? That's ridiculous. You can't assume that God exists and then use that as a premise to prove he exists!

God is the ultimate conclusion of all knowledge. I have already addressed this. God means, "reservoir of value". We can understand that at some point in our tiny scope of history, that at some point (supposedly) there was no intelligent life. Ok, the first intelligent question is wherefrom this so-called intelligence came. Specifics may be up to speculation but in general we should accept that any quality does not come from the lack of itself. Cause and effect. This is very logical. The problem you have with God may be a personal conception of God. The concept of God in general is logical and the final conclusion of all knowledge. You can sit here til oblivion arguing that you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or smell God, therefore God does not exist, but then I can sit here and simply tell you that you cannot prove the validity of this ability to see, taste, touch, hear and smell.

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

I think that atheists are more or less denying the existence of a personal God. They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God.

You have an incredibly narrow-minded view of atheists. We didn't all stare petulently out our windows at a grey, dreary sky and convert because life sucked. A lot of us merely expect evidence to believe in remarkable things. Could you imagine if someone talked down to you and said that you don't believe in aliens because you deny the utopia they could bring us?

Here again you make an analogy that is terrible. There is no comparison with these so far, vague "aliens" with the conception of God. Atheists' intelligence is stolen by illusion. If the theists' intelligence is also stolen by illusion then it is all illusion and we shall convert to nihilists.

[Mr Spinkles]

So what you're telling me is that the five senses can be proven by the demonstration of the five senses. Is it necessary for me to point out the obvious flaw in that reasoning?

If you know of a sixth sense, please describe an experiment similar to the one I described that could demonstrate this to me. Otherwise, your denial of the five senses will appear only as a desperate strategy by your confirmation bias to give validity to an imagined reality.

Also, your analogy about the sun globe....we know the sun globe exists for a lot more reasons than "well, the light of the sun must come from something". We know a lot about the sun globe, its surface, what may lie underneath....so far, you have not been able to demonstrate any way of detecting god or discovering his/her properties other than "the universe comes from god as light comes from the sun". So now our definition of god is "something from which the universe comes"....which is utterly meaningless (and definitely not something we should be worshipping).

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

If you know of a sixth sense, please describe an experiment similar to the one I described that could demonstrate this to me. Otherwise, your denial of the five senses will appear only as a desperate strategy by your confirmation bias to give validity to an imagined reality.

How can you be satisfied in this manner? We already know the premise you accept. I am not denying the five senses. I am simply showing that they are limited. The so-called "imagined reality" is the original one. This reality you know is a perverted reflection. How can it be proven so by playing the illusion? Just try to understand that no particular thing here ever lasts as that thing and has no real definition itself, but yet we think and speak as if they do. Why is this propensity there, intrinsically? Life can be accepted merely as an engaging of the senses, but why deny consciousness' natural propensity? It is there, why do you not regard it? Why is everything based upon sense gratification? The whole world is intoxicated because the gross senses are put before the subtle intellect. Consider these things, then step back and consider your self considering them.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Also, your analogy about the sun globe....we know the sun globe exists for a lot more reasons than "well, the light of the sun must come from something". We know a lot about the sun globe, its surface, what may lie underneath....so far, you have not been able to demonstrate any way of detecting god or discovering his/her properties other than "the universe comes from god as light comes from the sun". So now our definition of god is "something from which the universe comes"....which is utterly meaningless (and definitely not something we should be worshipping).

Better put, God is the Energetic from which the energy emanates.
Well, you will worship one thing or another. You will never fail to act in your capacity to serve. You can engage in serving the senses or you can renounce and engage in serving God. In general these are your options. Everything fits into one of these two categories. There isn't so much difference in your propensities from God. You desire, whether you realize it or not, to be enjoyer. God is the Supreme Enjoyer. Yet I doubt you can account for that nature. Why is it that you seek to enjoy? Wherefrom has this desire come? You have been engaged here. Who is this intelligence that even Einstein addressed, acting behind universal affairs, that has engaged you here? So many questions and so much time to ignore them. "Let us put them off and engage these bodies a little more till oblivion. We have no proof of anything but what satisfies our senses." The whole world is asleep. God is just trying to wake folks up.