Atheisms and the supernatural

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMHO, neither the objective nor the subjective is beyond the understanding of our mind and we can understand/have understood it to quite some extent. Yes, there are still things that we do not understand, but science is working on them. Future generations will know more than us. To say that we will never understand is not the correct position to take.

Objective reality in itself as independent of the mind is unknown, because all knowledge happens in the mind. Stop play this game with me. You know my answer already. What you believe objective reality is other than independent of the mind, is a belief.

 

[MikeF]

That better is based on the outcome you subjective choose to evaluate for a specific purpose. E.g. do you want to kill or heal/cure a human. Which drug is better depends on the outcome you want.
You are confusing 2 elements in your thinking: How something works and if that is useful to you.

Here it is for what you fail to understand in regards to science. Science relies on objectivity, either thorough observation or using an instrument.
You can't observe useful or measure it using an instrument. Useful is a subjective standard in you for what you want; i.e. a specific purpose.

You are in effect apparently unable to understand that this - "...whether one drug is better than another for a specific purpose." - is in part subjective because what qualifies as a specific purpose is subjective.

So here is a standard test you can use for a word or a combination of words: Are there in part some form of subjectivity going on? You test that in the follow manner:
Can you observe according to the following definitions regarding observations, that the word(s) used meet the standard of observation:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

So let us use a dog and the purpose of killing a human.
Can you see a dog? Yes.
Can you see that you want to kill a human? No! You can't see that. That is in you as a thought/feeling and if you don't want to kill a human, then that is also in you as you want to do something else. But that you want to achieve a specific purpose, is in you as a thought/feeling/interpretation.

So let us use water as an example. Can you give water to a human to help that human? Yes! Can you forcefully give water to a human so that kills the human? Yes. Both outcomes are a part of how water works in regards to the human body, but the specific purpose is in you.

In effect you use incomplete language. The full correct statement should have been:
...whether one drug is better than another for a specific purpose, for which the purpose is subjectively decided by one or more humans.
I.e. water can save a human or kill a human. Both are facts and can be tested using science. How you use that, is subjective in you.

That you are apparently unable to catch when you are not using observation/testing and using what you subjectively want to achieve as useful/good, is your problem, not mine.
I know how observation/testing works and when we are not doing that. You apparently don't!

Isn't that how science works? Someone asks a subjective question or makes a subjective statement and then tests to see if the statement holds true for past observations but also can predict future observations. Once the statement holds up to testing does it then become objective truth?
I posit that the statement, "The scientific method of inquiry is the best method for discerning reality.", is an objective fact.

 

[ecco]

Now this is 2 scientists debating one version.

As @MikeF so beautifully said...

Philosophy...is not knowledge, just the musings and untested thought experiments of an individual flawed observer.
Science leads to knowledge while philosophy is a fun mental pastime.

 

[ecco]

So what is next with knowledge?

Don't know, don't care.

What is next with our conversation, is that I'll not bother responding any more.

Feel free to have as many last words as you like.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn't that how science works? Someone asks a subjective question or makes a subjective statement and then tests to see if the statement holds true for past observations but also can predict future observations. Once the statement holds up to testing does it then become objective truth?
I posit that the statement, "The scientific method of inquiry is the best method for discerning reality.", is an objective fact.

Yes, but your ""The scientific method of inquiry is the best method for discerning reality." is subjective because best is not based on observation or using an instrument. Your "best" is in your brain as a subjective evaluation done by you. How do I know that?
1. Because I can't observe best or measure it using an instrument.
2. Because I subjectively can think differently and believe this: Science is limited methodology and it is limited how good it is, depending on what you are doing.

So it is not an objective fact, because best is not objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
Best is a personal interpretation in you and not independent of individual thought. Further best is not in the realm of sensible experience perceptible by all observers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As @MikeF so beautifully said...

​

So now we use emotions and not knowledge.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Read and learn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Objective reality in itself as independent of the mind is unknown, because all knowledge happens in the mind.

You cannot take out mind where humans are concerned. Without mind, we are just logs. And if you abandon your skepticism, human mind is quite capable of understanding complex things. See relativity or quantum mechanics. True, I am not that smart, but there are very smart people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You cannot take out mind where humans are concerned. Without mind, we are just logs. And if you abandon your skepticism, human mind is quite capable of understanding complex things. See relativity or quantum mechanics. True, I am not that smart, but there are very smart people.

Start here. It is Wikipedia but will do as a starting point:
Start with Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions -
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[night912]

You would explain, logically, how my asserting theism is wrong. Because it's the truth assertion that matters, philosophically, not what you think I believe.

So you decided to completely dodge my questions and asserted that your belief is the truth. It's funny how you talk philosophy and try to be philosophical. You demand others to provide a logical explanation instead of their belief, insinuating that they're being illogical if they don't. And with a simple switch of roles, you end up doing the exact thing you accused others of doing.

Now let's see. You didn't just make statements telling us your beliefs. You actually made an assertion and committed logical fallacies. You made a truth claim based on your beliefs expecting us to simply accept it as the truth. And when challenged, your justification for it was, it's the truth because it's the truth. In other words, I'm right and you're wrong because I'm right. That was also supported with a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof. You talked philosophy and tried to be philosophical thinking that you were being logical, only to end up showing how illogical you are.

Not everything needs to be about philosophy, but if someone wants philosophy and tries to be philosophically logical, there's nothing wrong with pointing out their ignorance on philosophy and logic. It helps them to not remain being ignorant.

Because it's the truth assertion that matters, philosophically, not what you think I believe.

At least you acknowledged that I am correct about what you believe.

Words of advice:
Putting the word, "truth" in your assertion won't make your assertion anymore true than what it initially was.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you decided to completely dodge my questions and asserted that your belief is the truth. It's funny how you talk philosophy and try to be philosophical. You demand others to provide a logical explanation instead of their belief, insinuating that they're being illogical if they don't. And with a simple switch of roles, you end up doing the exact thing you accused others of doing.

Now let's see. You didn't just make statements telling us your beliefs. You actually made an assertion and committed logical fallacies. You made a truth claim based on your beliefs expecting us to simply accept it as the truth. And when challenged, your justification for it was, it's the truth because it's the truth. In other words, I'm right and you're wrong because I'm right. That was also supported with a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof. You talked philosophy and tried to be philosophical thinking that you were being logical, only to end up showing how illogical you are.

Not everything needs to be about philosophy, but if someone wants philosophy and tries to be philosophically logical, there's nothing wrong with pointing out their ignorance on philosophy and logic. It helps them to not remain being ignorant.



At least you acknowledged that I am correct about what you believe.

Words of advice:
Putting the word, "truth" in your assertion won't make your assertion anymore true than what it initially was.

Please explain what truth is.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, but your ""The scientific method of inquiry is the best method for discerning reality." is subjective because best is not based on observation or using an instrument. Your "best" is in your brain as a subjective evaluation done by you. How do I know that?
1. Because I can't observe best or measure it using an instrument.

Why do you assert that my statement is not based on observation. It most certainly is based on observation. I gave the example of comparing the base of knowledge of early literate cultures to our base of knowledge today, taking into account that knowledge gain through science vs knowledge gained outside of science. The large, observable difference in favor of science makes a clear and convincing case.
(I actually said pre-historic, I think, but I wanted to avoid an argument about documentation)

 

[MikeF]

That is not an answer! It assumes what is in question!



"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
That is a quote from a scientist. William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3 That is about science.
Now before you go any further, you have to study the history and philosophy of science and then explain what methodological naturalism means.
For your information methodological naturalism is connected to the problem of knowledge of the objective reality.

In your quote above, the author is using poetic license. The term "playing fair" is not to be taken litterally and certainly not litterally applied to science as a whole. This use of quotation is akin to using bible quotes to support any, and even conflicting, opinions.
Your label of methodological naturalism is simply philosophy jargon that adds nothing to the discussion. How about we skip the philosophy of science and focus expanding our knowledge base through science.

What of my core premise that we should not trust ourselves to be reliable and impartial observers of the world around us. Would you agree with that premise?
Since you haven't referred to it, I am also curious if you accept my ascertion earlier that morality has nothing to do with reality; that morality is simply a human construct.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What of my core premise that we should not trust ourselves to be reliable and impartial observers of the world around us.

Not only that but our sense organs do not have the power to transcend their limitations. Therefore use of instruments is necessary. What we perceive will always be painted by our limitations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you assert that my statement is not based on observation. It most certainly is based on observation. I gave the example of comparing the base of knowledge of early literate cultures to our base of knowledge today, taking into account that knowledge gain through science vs knowledge gained outside of science. The large, observable difference in favor of science makes a clear and convincing case.
(I actually said pre-historic, I think, but I wanted to avoid an argument about documentation)

Yes, you can observe differences. Now tell how you observe best.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
What of my core premise that we should not trust ourselves to be reliable and impartial observers of the world around us. Would you agree with that premise?
Since you haven't referred to it, I am also curious if you accept my ascertion earlier that morality has nothing to do with reality; that morality is simply a human construct.

As long as you admit it is a premise and not absolute proof, we are okay.

As for reality, what is that?

 

[PureX]

So you decided to completely dodge my questions and asserted that your belief is the truth.

No, YOU'RE asserting this. I have posted nothing of what I 'believe'. Do you not understand the difference between a belief, and an assertion? Perhaps this is the problem.

You demand others to provide a logical explanation instead of their belief, insinuating that they're being illogical if they don't.

No, I expect others to present their logical justifications for their assertions regarding the existence of God/gods. I don't care what they believe.

Not everything needs to be about philosophy, but if someone wants philosophy and tries to be philosophically logical, there's nothing wrong with pointing out their ignorance on philosophy and logic. It helps them to not remain being ignorant.

I agree, and that's what I'm doing. But for some strange reason, there are folks here who keep insisting that we're talking about their 'unbelief', which is not a philosophical issue, nor a subject that interests ... well ... anyone. And when I point this out, they want to contend, endlessly, about it. Because for some reason, they really NEED to presume that philosophy is about what they believe. Even though it's not about what anyone believes; it's about what people assert to be the truth of our existence, and why they do so.

 

[MikeF]

Reality is existence as we imagine it, in our minds. Existence is 'all that is', which includes and surpasses what we can know of it. Both are conceptualizations of a truth that we cannot comprehend. So, in effect; a mystery.

They ARE reality. You are confusing reality with physicality, as most philosophical materialists, do.
Because science can only investigate physicality, while existence includes metaphysicality - cognition. Such that to understand existence, we need art, and philosophy, and religion. Because science cannot investigate the metaphysical realm of existence. It can only investigate the physical realm of existence.

Thank you for your definitions. I am going to make some assumptions about the definitions to explore the boundary of what each refer to. Please correct me where I miss the mark. I will use capitalization on terms we are defining.

Physicality is the Physical World which includes all matter and energy contained in space and through time. The Physical World exists, is knowable, and is the same for all observers regardless of a particular observers ability to observe all aspects or properties.

Reality as you have defined it, is confined to the mind (a mind?, all minds?) and is conscious thought(cognition?). Reality (conscious thought) is separate and distinct from the Physical World.

Existence is all that is, which is composed of the separate entities of Reality and the Physical World. What is still unclear is whether there is a third category of Existence. It is not clear whether the non-Physical World of Existence is composed entirely of Reality to which there are two parts, knowable Reality and unknowable Reality, or, whether Reality as conscious thought is the knowable aspect of the non-Physical World part of Existance and that there is a yet unlabeled third part to Existence which is not knowable and not part of the mind or conscious thought.

I look forward to the clarification of Existence and any other corrections.

 

[PureX]

Physicality is the Physical World which includes all matter and energy contained in space and through time. The Physical World exists, is knowable, and is the same for all observers regardless of a particular observers ability to observe all aspects or properties.

Matter IS energy. Or rather, matter is one of the ways that energy is expressing itself. As are space, motion, time, light, heat, attraction, repulsion, and so on. These are all "physical" expressions/manifestation of energy. Unfortunately, we have no idea what 'energy' actually is, from where it originated, how, and why (if that question is even applicable).

Reality as you have defined it, is confined to the mind (a mind?, all minds?) and is conscious thought(cognition?). Reality (conscious thought) is separate and distinct from the Physical World.

Life, consciousness, and finally cognition (conscious awareness coupled with imagination and reason) originate from, but are transcendent of, the physical realm of existence. "Transcendent of", in the sense that they open up a whole new set of existential possibilities that did not otherwise exist in the physical realm from which they originated. I would refer to this, then, as a "metaphysical" realm of existence. It is not separate from, but it is distinct from, the realm of existential physicality.

Reality, then, (by my understanding) is a metaphysical cognitive reflection of the physical realm in which we humans exist, as generated from our limited sensual and intellectual experiences interacting within it.

Existence is all that is, which is composed of the (distinct) entities of Reality and Physicality.

As we experience it, yes. But our experience of existence is very limited, as is our ability to understand that experience. So the further existential possibilities are limitless (from our perspective).

What is still unclear is whether there is a third category of Existence.

Yes. Or more. We do not know. I would offer one more 'aspect' of existence: that of the "Divine Realm". That being the realm of existence wherein the great mystery of it's being is resolved. And I would include it based on the fact of our being able to cognate the questions of existential origin, sustenance, and purpose, but not the answers. This, to me, hints at another 'transcendent' realm of existence, beyond the physical, and the metaphysical, within which these 'answers' are to be found.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As long as you admit it is a premise and not absolute proof, we are okay.
As for reality, what is that?

The journey is slow, but as we get nearer, things get clearer.
When stars collide: Solving the 16-year mystery of the Blue Ring Nebula

 

[MikeF]

Matter IS energy. Or rather, matter is one of the ways that energy is expressing itself. As are space, motion, time, light, heat, attraction, repulsion, and so on. These are all "physical" expressions/manifestation of energy. Unfortunately, we have no idea what 'energy' actually is, from where it originated, how, and why (if that question is even applicable).
Life, consciousness, and finally cognition (conscious awareness coupled with imagination and reason) originate from, but are transcendent of, the physical realm of existence. "Transcendent of", in the sense that they open up a whole new set of existential possibilities that did not otherwise exist in the physical realm from which they originated. I would refer to this, then, as a "metaphysical" realm of existence. It is not separate from, but it is distinct from, the realm of existential physicality.

Reality, then, (by my understanding) is a metaphysical cognitive reflection of the physical realm in which we humans exist, as generated from our limited sensual and intellectual experiences interacting within it.
As we experience it, yes. But our experience of existence is very limited, as is our ability to understand that experience. So the further existential possibilities are limitless (from our perspective).
Yes. Or more. We do not know. I would offer one more 'aspect' of existence: that of the "Divine Realm". That being the realm of existence wherein the great mystery of it's being is resolved. And I would include it based on the fact of our being able to cognate the questions of existential origin, sustenance, and purpose, but not the answers. This, to me, hints at another 'transcendent' realm of existence, beyond the physical, and the metaphysical, within which these 'answers' are to be found.

There is a lot to unpack here, which is good, but I have quickly realized that we require a few more defined labels.

The label Existence is defined as “all that IS”. We need a way to refer to “that which IS NOT”. Perhaps Nonexistence and Nonexistent?

As I think about the definitions for Metaphysical Realm and Physical World in our discussion, it appears that there may be instances where something may exist in the Metaphysical Realm and does not necessarily exist in the Physical World. Should there be an separate term or label for something that does not exist in the Physical World, that is not part of the Physical World, yet may have existence outside the Physical World?

One synonym for “not real” or “nonexistent” is “imaginary”, however, the textbook definition “existing only in imagination: lacking factual reality” directly conflicts with the definition of Reality you have described. This in turn brought to mind the concept of what is fact versus what is fiction; what is True and what is False.

Under the definition that we are using for Reality, once I try to think of something that does not exist, it pops into existence (in the Metaphysical Realm at least), and therefore IS. However, if the Metaphysical Realm originates from and is a cognitive reflection of the Physical World, does that thing that I have imagined as something that is not real and does not exist, that does now exist by virtue of my having imagined it, does this thing now too have a component in the Physical World?

And this leaves me with my final thought: Is it possible for any idea, thought, concept, belief, described object or entity, to fall under the category of “that which IS NOT”? If so, how do we evaluate and decide whether something falls under “IS”” or “IS NOT”?