Can it not exist?

[QuestioningMind]

That is just your opinion.

Yes it is. And you can't show me how your intuitive knowledge' is any different from their 'intuitive knowledge', making 'intuitive knowledge' pretty worthless when it comes to determining reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that 'my view' of logic and reason has given us the scientific method... a method that has BY FAR been the most reliable method human beings have ever found for determining how the universe functions. If the scientific method hadn't figured out how electrons work, the two of us wouldn't be communicating over the Internet. Since cows have yet to figure out how to build computers I'm pretty confident that people using the scientific method can reason far better than any cow.

'My' form of logic led us to realize that disease is caused by viruses and bacteria. "Your' form of logic led people to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits or curses... as well as preposterous claims that the Covid vaccine is a vast conspiracy to put microchips into people.

Yeah, selective choices. Science has also in part given us global warming and better weapons to kill people. Science is neither good or bad. You are projecting your subjective values unto a neutral method.
Learn to spot when you are subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes it is. And you can't show me how your intuitive knowledge' is any different from their 'intuitive knowledge', making 'intuitive knowledge' pretty worthless when it comes to determining reality.

Again with the subjective as worthless. What is the scientific theory of worthless? Learn to spot when you are subjective.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That was an appeal to emotion and not an actual claim with evidence. You are using your emotions.

I do get emotional about this. It scares me to death to watch such a large percentage of the population abandon critical thinking skills in favor of believing that 'feels right' to them. It should concern anyone who cares about objective truth. If you think that Q-Anon followers have a valid argument then I'm afraid that attempting to reason with you is a waste of time.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yeah, selective choices. Science has also in part given us global warming and better weapons to kill people. Science is neither good or bad. You are projecting your subjective values unto a neutral method.
Learn to spot when you are subjective.

What a silly claim. Science didn't give us 'global warming' or 'better weapons'. Science is just the methodology we use to figure stuff out. You're right, science isn't good or bad... it's what human being do with scientific knowledge that can be viewed as good or bad. That doesn't change the fact that this method had been more successful at helping us figure out how reality works than any other method we've ever used. It is FAR better than people projecting their subjective values of what 'feels good to them' in order to determine what's real.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, I know that science works for that which it works. But ridiculous is not science. That is a first person qualitative evaluation. The limits of science also apply to you.
So no matter how much there is an objective reality, it doesn't tell you how to actually cope as an individual human. That is the end game. You went from objective facts to subjective evaluation and properly didn't even notice it. That is okay, that is how some humans do it.

Sadly for far too many people the way that they 'cope as an individual' with objective reality is to pretend like if they just believe in something hard enough that it makes it real. That's why so many people accept the bizarre Q-anon theories and think that the Orange Clown actually won the last election. The moment that facts become nothing more than personal opinion, we're doomed as a civilization to a new dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Again with the subjective as worthless. What is the scientific theory of worthless? Learn to spot when you are subjective.

Yet another non-response. Tell me how your intuitive knowledge is any different than the intuitive knowledge of a Q-Anon follower, or a flat-Earther, or someone convinced that magical pixies live in their attic?

 

[osgart]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

I think it's very likely that in reality there are vast amounts of unknown unknowns. The five senses most likely perceive very little. To say only what is observable, predictable, and testable is all that exists is very short sighted, and perhaps very careless and nihilistic.

Likewise to talk of love as a sensation or feeling, or a mere chemical reaction is superficial.

The only way to be materially productive is to limit yourself to what is observable, testable, and predictable. Science is the most powerful utility to achieve that kind of success.

I'd be a fool to think science is the only way of living, and the only means to knowledge. Most science worshippers don't realize they are doing philosophy when they draw inferences and conclusions about reality from the physical. They also seem to redefine language and words as it suits them. There is a serious lack of common language, and simplicity in how they use words.

For me in my own practice I've come to recognize that spirituality has logic, depth, and great meaning. It seems a lot of people poorly define virtues, and live without being affected by their reality. The only way to recognize a virtue is to be affected by its meaning. The only way to live a virtue is to be greatly and truthfully affected by one.

Most virtues in fact are poorly defined in the dictionary. I have to dig deeper to personally define what they mean. For example some people take honesty as always telling the truth. This is a false definition of honesty and is dangerous. Honesty is having truthful intentions, and is as much about concealing and protecting the truth, as it is about telling people what they truly deserve to hear. Sometimes honesty will say something false in order to protect the truth of the innocent. Saying something false is far different than a lie by matter of the nature of one's intentions.

Truth is also a lost definition. Truth to me is the absence of lies, and the most virtuous actuality attainable. Truth is not mere fact and truth is more than an actuality. Truth is what is needed to maintain and grow justice.

So in searching for truth and it's virtues I can totally see how someone can come to believe in a God of those things. If there is a God I don't see it in any of the religions I've experienced. But I do understand the belief to some extent.

My downfall with believing in a God is that I don't see any divine plans working in humanity. Now if there is a God then perhaps it's presumptuous to think that God must work in the lives of humans.

Science often tells a different story about human nature. Cosmology, and naturalism reveal a lot of things about the nature of reality. A lot of what they reveal is about a cold, impersonal nature of reality. It has changed my view of reality in a lot of ways. But spirituality is too profound for me to ever give up the pursuit of it.

There are things to learn in spirituality that are irreplaceable, and well beyond what one gets for wisdom of the world, and wisdom is far greater than knowledge. True wisdom is hard to come by. It's invisible and priceless.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, selective choices. Science has also in part given us global warming and better weapons to kill people. Science is neither good or bad.

Science only figures out how the universe works. It takes industry and politics to say "Hey, here is something deadly and it will make us money". The scientists who discovered nuclear fission and power knew it could be used as a weapon. It wasn't the scientists who wanted weapons built, it was the US and German governments in the 1940's. The scientists in the US program committed in large part because there was concern Germany would have weapons before the war ended. That wasn't the case in Europe but the bombs were used on Japan. That was a political decision that many prominent scientists opposed at the time.

You are projecting your subjective values unto a neutral method.
Learn to spot when you are subjective.

Don't forget irony.

 

[F1fan]

Who's logic?

There's only one logic. The set of rules is available for anyone to study for free.

Spiritual way of life to me is much more logic than the mundane "blind" way of life. You may disagree and that is totally normal too.

Since you can't demonstrate anything exists that "special" sensory ability can detect, yet you believe it exists anyway, I suggest the blindness is yours because you ignore the obvious flaw in your approach. The flaw: believe in dubious concepts first, then try to find ways to justify that belief is reasonable.

Proper logic is: find evidence, then conclude the idea is probable, or even true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, but to say it exists, you must be able to detect some effect it causes, or else it's existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, and saying it exists is meaningless. It predicts nothing. It explains nothing.

Let me ask. We see the effects "god" causes for the good or for the bad, and we see how it helps people while the same belief does harm. So, if something exists because we can detect the effect it causes, why wouldn't we say it/god exist since it follows the same line of reasoning?

 

[DNB]

You seem to be describing maturity and wisdom here, not independent objects that our senses perceive. Jim can understand that drinking and driving is not a smart thing to do, but Dave is indifferent to the risks. This isn't something to perceive, but a test of one's wisdom and reasoning.

No, your analogy was incorrect, for both are aware of the truth. Dave just presses his luck (he's not denying the existence of the threat),
My point was, that in order to argue the matter of truth, there's a subjectivity in who will get the answer correct - wisdom and perception allows one to discern the facts more accurately than another. What one does with that knowledge is a different issue.

How do you know this is true versus some element of religious ideology that you have adopted without evidence? Can you admit your assertion here isn't factual, and merely something that is part of Christian dogma?

Can you admit that you're actually the one employing conjecture?

IOW, God set things up in a way that appears to be as if no God exists. So how does an objective and rational mind come to believe that a God does exist when there are no facts?

Do you not know what ambiguous means?

 

[DNB]

And some can do mathematics while others cannot (or will not). What difference does that make?
The wise is able to think better, not perceive better. And, if perception is all that is required, we have many devices to help with that.
Sounds like a good myth to me. But reality? Not so much.

Do you not understand the meaning of wisdom, insight or perception?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do get emotional about this. It scares me to death to watch such a large percentage of the population abandon critical thinking skills in favor of believing that 'feels right' to them. It should concern anyone who cares about objective truth. If you think that Q-Anon followers have a valid argument then I'm afraid that attempting to reason with you is a waste of time.

Yeah, all humans who abandon critical thinking skills in favor of believing that which 'feels right' to them are a Q-Anon follower.
So let us look a bit closer.
Say you have 2 non-religious humans and they contradict each other by claiming respectively that it is known that the world is physical and that it is not known what the world is.
This example also applies to other examples as what science is, what truth is, what knowledge is, what political rights are, what morality is.
So I would estimate that at least over 95% and maybe close to 99% of all adults don't use critical thinking skills. They are in effect just products of nature and nurture.

So are all these people like Q-Anon followers? Well, no, not as far as I can tell. So is it reasonable to go after all these people like they are all the same?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science only figures out how the universe works. It takes industry and politics to say "Hey, here is something deadly and it will make us money". The scientists who discovered nuclear fission and power knew it could be used as a weapon. It wasn't the scientists who wanted weapons built, it was the US and German governments in the 1940's. The scientists in the US program committed in large part because there was concern Germany would have weapons before the war ended. That wasn't the case in Europe but the bombs were used on Japan. That was a political decision that many prominent scientists opposed at the time.


Don't forget irony.

The same with vaccines and all the benefits. The advances in biology can be used to make better vaccines or better bio-weapons. Both choices are politics in the end.
Science can be likened to a hammer. How you use it, has nothing to do with it in itself. So stop treating science like a good hammer!!!

 

[Clara Tea]

Maybe our being can detect it, but humans have "forgotten" how it was done, so they must have a physical tool to be able to detect it.

God might forbid us from messing with our tools.

Imagine looking into the sky with a telescope, and seeing a giant eye (of God) staring back. God might not want us to use a telescope, or microscope, or radiation detector. To do so, might invade the privacy of God, or reveal him though he wishes to evade detection.

 

[Clara Tea]

Can you think of anything else in your life where you suspend reason and logic and instead just believe? I can't. It seems it only applies to non-demonstrable religious beliefs.

On that note, I think that I'll watch TV.

I'll press the TV remote, and the TV will turn on (and I have faith that it will because it has).

Many don't know how a TV works (inside), but I do. They have faith that it works, and, when they buy a new TV, they have faith that it will work too.

How many travel on airplanes? How many know how planes work?

I think that there are many things that we take for granted (things that work, but we don't know why....we have faith that they and their replacements will work).

Perhaps most things in life are like that?

 

[Clara Tea]

The same with vaccines and all the benefits. The advances in biology can be used to make better vaccines or better bio-weapons. Both choices are politics in the end.
Science can be likened to a hammer. How you use it, has nothing to do with it in itself. So stop treating science like a good hammer!!!

It's like the Religious Right's posters for the National Rifle Association. They assert that many things can be used as weapons (cars, etc). The al Qaeda used airplanes as weapons (911 attack). President W. Bush accused Iraq of using balloon trucks as bioweapons, and using aluminum tubes for refining plutonium (though they were the wrong dimensions).

A terrorist, in modern times, mailed weaponized anthrax to a politician. It was traced by its DNA to a government lab, then the terrorist was identified as a disgruntled scientist. Since the US has treaties with other nations not to have bioweapons, what what is doing with them?

In short, anything can be used as a weapon. The National Rifle Associate (and the Religious Right that supports them) assert that guns don't cause violence, people cause violence.

But, some guns are for hunting (rifles for deer, shotguns for fowl), but no hunter uses a pistol. Pistols are only used for killing humans or wild animals that are attacking, and they are not very effective for big game. Pistols are the most common weapon to rob stores.

So, should certain classes of weapons be banned? If we banned pistols, people could still defend their homes with rifles. But the NRA asserts that any restriction of gun rights is the first step to banning guns.

Many gun advocates demand guns so that they can shoot government officials if they feel that the US is a dictatorship. They advocate armed rebellion against the United States government if they don't agree with the government.

Imagine if we ban certain types of guns, like AK-47 assault rifles (like the one Patrick Purdy used to kill many children on a playground....in full automatic machine gun mode). That means that we could arrest anyone that we see carrying such a weapon.

The NRA argues that only criminals will carry weapons, because they flout the law.

Currently, policemen worry that the flack jackets won't stop armor pierson bullets (steel tipped, with Teflon). The criminals have more intimidating weapons than the police, and many policemen are limited to a certain type of weapon.

Does the 2nd Amendment allow us to have a nuclear bomb in our basement? If not, why not?

If weapons were not so readily available, they wouldn't be as easy to obtain for robberies, and anyone caught with one could be arrested on the spot.

Rifles are difficult to conceal, so you could see someone carrying one into a store for a robbery.

Does it work to arm everyone? If we handed out guns to all airline passengers, then a rogue passenger would not dare use a gun to hijack the plane, or he'd be shot.

Do we hand out guns to kids on playgrounds so that Patrick Purdys won't be able to kill unarmed kids?

Getting back to your point, science can be used as a weapon or tool of peace, health, and prosperity. Individual scientists must evaluate if their employers will use their knowledge for good or evil. If you work for the military, you must be prepared to help the government attack enemies (like Iraq), even if you don't think that they should be attacked (especially since they have been found innocent).

We have a more choice to be part of the problem or be part of the solution, and religion plays a vital role. Sadly, the Religious Right seems to have chosen the wrong side of that debate (siding with guns, war, torture camps, greed).

 

[Clara Tea]

There isn't my logic and your logic. There's just logic.
You "see life different" if you want, but if you're not employing logic, then you're being irrational.

It's possible for the irrational to use logic, as well.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes. I don't get to talk with everyone and my understanding of God as a being or entity is extremely limited. I haven't experienced god before but I understand what's meant by it to know whether I'm near to experience it (in a non-being context). Using God as a being or using that word to define consciousness isn't something I heard from you before.

Some things like your view of logic and seeing the physical from the spiritual are new beliefs I've hadn't heard you say before.

Anyway... I wanted to comment in the logic convo. Maybe saying it differently may help.

You are using logic when you move out of the way from a moving car. Your reasoning is it's a. Going fast, b. Likely to hit you, c. It will hurt, and d. Your human and mind sparks up in danger for you to react....when someone says it made sense or have good reasoning that you moved out the way, they refer to the logic you used to come to that conclusion (moving).

Whether it's spiritual or human is besides the point. It's using sound reasoning to draw a said conclusion and being able to demonstrate that conclusion without contradiction.

I "think" you're more concerned with how people will rate your answer. I understand from your other post how you came to that conclusion but the idea is logic is more about your reasoning.

So, I'm sure all your experiences and beliefs are sound but demonstrating it would be totally difference-hence the purpose of discussion. Not to bounce the same information off others but to upgrade by articulating more of what you believe (not defining God or consciousness but the reasoning behind it).

Logically, it is safer to walk down the middle of a road, rather than walk on a sidewalk. This is because only a maniac would drive down a sidewalk, and you don't want to be run over by a maniac. Whereas, sane drivers would stop for you in the road.

Logic can be used to argue many points, even if those points don't seem to make any sense.