ppp
Well-Known Member
Are we discarding your entire previous post and only starting with your statement, "that the human behaviors of observation, thinking and feeling are not exactly the same"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, here is how I was taught that one.
I was born on the edge of a cliff and I have don't nothing all my life, but standing on the edge and wondering if I should try to jump off or not and wondering if I would fall to my death hen. This is the reduction ad absurdum version, because life is not just these examples.
So let me explain it for you: Your example with the bus would be relevant for everything in the universe and everything in a human life if that was the only type of situations going on; i.e. life and death ones including effect of the physical. But that is not the case.
So back to this:
Well, you rubbed me the wrong way with your "we". You properly don't like it when somebody make a universal claim of morality that includes you and claim authority over what is right and wrong. You did that and I told you off. If you want to do universal morality, learn to do so. Don't make a self-refuting claim and use a free floating not grounded with a reasoned argument case of an universal "we".
So you where in effect the superior one, because you claimed the authority of "we". And then yes, I topped your superiority by showing you that your argument wasn't rational.
So yes, I properly shouldn't have done it exactly like I did, but the core of it I stand by.
We are in debates and you made a claim of how we ought to behave as humans. I refuted that.
Now as to superiority, here is how it works. No human is objectively as for right/wrong, good/bad and what not superior to another human. There is no objective morality and authority in this world we share. As back to biology we can either cooperate, fight or go our separate ways. We are different as individuals but equal as humans.
That is the balancing act in morality if you want to include other humans as both individual yet also equal.
Now you can of course claim that you have figured out, but here it is as testing. If you claim a universal answer, that is not really universal, I will point out that it is not universal by testing it against the world. That includes your example of the bus.
So here is what happened. You tried to make an universal claim and I showed you that it didn't work. Now you can learn from that or you can walk away. I am not superior as a human to you nor inferior or in reverse. But I have been doing this for over 20 years now - debating right/wrong and good/bad for this world we share.
Regards
Mikkel
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
We are discarding my whole post and starting anew for whether there is only one ontological category in the world or if it is unknown what the world is in the ontological sense.
So are the human behaviors of external sensory experience, cognition in the brain and feelings in the brain for these 3 cases exactly the same?
ppp
Well-Known Member
No. But do not let yourself get too carried away. There has been no discussion as to what respect that they are different. Nor to what degree.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, I will use a standard form of neutral approach. I won't claim what the world is, but rather look at as how we humans act and if we can reduce that acting down to one type of acting. I.e. one type of knowledge with an universal methodology, which works on all of the world.
So the next thing about the world I will take for granted is, that if we are to talk of all of the world, that includes humans? Yes or no?
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
I feel like your mixed up on the definition of faith, or you are awfully deceptive. Faith is defined as absolute trust in a thing. Religion is belief (absolute trust) in God without aprehension, as hope goes beyond science.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Why are we trying to do this? Why do you think it would matter whether we can reduce human acting down to one type of acting?
if by "world" you mean the planet Earth, then yes, that includes humans.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Because if you can show that everything is physical, then in practice it means that you use one and only one type of methodology and a methodology is a form of acting. When and if you say: Everything is physical. Then if effect you can reduce everything do to one specific form of behavior, acting and methodology.
And the world including humans are include in the universe and the universe is reality and everything that is?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear. I have not claimed that everything is physical. I have claimed that the physical is the only thing for which we can currently test.
That is not necessarily true. We have only discovered one reliable methodology for demonstrating the probability of a claim being true in the natural world. There may be other methodologies, but none are yet in evidence.
Methodology is the conception of a process. Following the methodology is acting.
As I said above, I do not. I am not a philosophical naturalist.
Yes.
I don't know.
*edited out some bad inclusions
*edit added "currently"
Last edited by a moderator:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Thank you for the whole post, but we only need this.
You: The physical is the only thing for which we can test.
Me. No!
That is the end. We can test through observation as that relates to the physical. We can test for reasoning, mathematics, logic and philosophy. And we can test individually, how we feel. And we can try to combine all of these 3 categories into one and test how that works.
So here it is as for testing. If you have a test, you can test if the test have limits for what it can test. But that includes what you take for granted as a valid result. So if you don't accept that your test has limits and it is not the only test, you can act accordingly. I just test if I can act differently.
So we end here. If you want to act as if your test is the only test, you can do so. I act differently. How you evaluate that is up to you and how I do it, is up to me. But we are playing the game of what to do with negative results. I.e. if a test has a limit and the limit shows up as a negative.
Regards
Mikkel
ppp
Well-Known Member
I see no reason to consider reasoning, mathematics, logic and philosophy or feelings to be outside of the physical world. In fact, I see no reason to regard them as anything but brain states.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You can't see that as seeing with observation through external sensory experience. Your "see" is not literal seeing and you can't use your own test on it. You in effect confirmed my point by testing using reasoning and not observation.
Regards
Mikkel
ppp
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what your first two sentences mean.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Take the words "see" and "show". I can show you a cat. I can show you that 2+2=4. It is not the same "show". You do see the difference between seeing a cat and seeing the meaning.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Yes. I see the differences between the multiple usages of a given word. Explain why I should think that a word having different usages is significant. Please be brief and speak to that specific point.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
If you can't unite the 2 different meanings into one, you can't unite everything in to one test of one meaning: Physical.
You to the effect of: I can test everything in only one meaning.
Me: No!
ppp
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. But no. Words having different usages does not make any of the different usages non-physical.
If I say "iron", I can be referring to a type of metal, or a device for getting the wrinkles out of clothes. Or a tonic. Or a pistol. All usages of the word refer to something physical.
Appealing to homonyms is not a rational argument for you claim that there is something non physical. Is that all you've got?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Faith might be evidence of their belief, however, it is not evidence that the belief is true. There is pretty much nothing one cannot believe on faith alone, therefore faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You are using mental reasoning and not physical action. You are doing philosophy and you confirm my point by using mental and not physical behavior in your reasoning.
Now here is the technical problem in fancy wording. Is it possible to do physicalism in a reductive sense for which all processes can be reduced down to the physical or is physicalism non-reductive in that, the mental is caused by the physical, but can't be reduced to the physical. In other words: Are there emergent properties, which are non-reductive in terms of the physical?
That is the game we are playing. And you are not alone in that nor am I alone in that. We as humans have been doing that for over 2000+ years now and then answer in practice is that everything is the set of interconnected categories, which can't in practice be reduced down to one category.
You can't do it with the physical and religion can do it with God. And philosophers can't do it with reason and logic alone.