In my opinion being a philosophic and wise atheist is the only way to achieve true happiness and escape from fear. Reality = God. We are all Infinite. Our mind places limits on everything but once you realize limits aren't there it gives you the ability to really understand what life and existence as it be actually is; tangents in a pool of infinity.
I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I'll make this point: there cannot be a world where every scientific point is available - it's impossible by definition due to the naturally contingent (uncertain/incomplete) nature of any empirical model.
Kelly, the problem I have with your questions is I'm not sure what type of proof you demand. You ask for "scientific" & "proof" -my beliefs are much more tentative than that (a fact MoI denies in his steroetype of religious views). Furthermore "Scientific" demands repeatability & even then (eg the sun) its not "proof". So could you tell me -how would you test the hypothesis "Wood killed Caroline Bryne"? I want to know what sort of "evidence" would satisfy you.
I totally accept that scientific proof is contingent on the data, and therefore never certain like an axiom, e.g. A=A. That is all proof can be.
So, what proof have you that supports your hypothesis that your data (please describe this as well) should fit in the "religious phenomena" box? I think you ought to come clean immediately if you don't have any data or made any testing.
I gather "Wood killed Caroline Bryne" refers to a real murder case in the newspapers....
.....and in this case the convicting evidence would follow the normal pattern. E.g. motive, reliable witnesses, absence of alibi, forensic examination of body, scientific study of scene of death (e.g. how body dies), psychological studies, past history of key persons, etc.
I'm not an expert on criminology, so I wouldn't be the best one to interpret the data.
Attention-seeking behaviour of celebrities and socially vandalising media are factors.
I suspect your problem is that you love the Absolute,so anything contingent seems week to you. I am very aware of the limits of knowledge,so think little is absolute &have to make decisions &judgements in the absence of "absolute" proof. In reality all of us have to do this,all the time. Even science does this. Any observation,all history,any 1-off event will have limits on its "provability". Failing to acknowledge this leads to demands of "religious" evidence that reinforces existing prejudice.
James, you've already indicated you define God as finite with infinite attributes. So I definitely accept you're talking about something that is not absolute, but rather something as contingent as what you might call a sneeze or a memory.
So, what exactly is your experience or evidence that gave rise to your interpretation, being 'it is God, a finite thing with infinite attributes'?
BTW, Are you saying God is definitely a finite thing with infinite attributes? Or are you unsure?
The primary evidence that Jesus is God is the record of what he did &what happened to him, the people who saw him, what he said &did that fulfilled so much he couldn't have faked it,the people who did (& didn't) believe in him who we can read about. This is well tested, but unfortunately for "absolutes" is history, & thus,like murder cases or any claim of history, relies on a judgement about the evidence. [PS Why the jibe "come clean immediately"-this isn't a game,its a philosophical discussion]
Ok, taking your last reply on the "Psychology of Mystery" page: "The only reason I believe in God is because of Jesus,"
Basically you are stuck with the Bible as your only evidence. You haven't had any sensory data or other personal experience of God. You are going purely off what others have said. Is that correct?
BTW Would you mind if we keep the discussion here in one thread?
Sorry Kelly, but you are still doing it. I said "primary" &again you are turning that into "only","purely" etc [beware of emotionalising]. Theres lots of coroborating evidence, such as my own experience,how it fits life/human nature/relationships etc better than anything else I've heard of, but like you am looking for independent,verifyable evidence.
BTW re one thread: a)where does your question about Infinites fit? b)The type of evidence & "proof" we are seeking is crucial to the discussion.
By the way, did your own experience come *before* ever reading the Bible? Ie. did you observe Jesus and hypothesise that he is something you would call finite with not-finite attributes?
Could you give me evidence about Hitler? Caesar? Each of this requires "secondhand evidence" -all history & accounts do, yet upon testing I find no reason to believe what is historically indicated isn't true.
Other evidences include: other actions of God, fulfilment of things Jesus had no control over, experiences, that it makes sense of life, that it leads to better lives, complexity of creation etc. These are dealt with better on e-Cafe, but cooborate Jesus
Neither Hitler or Caesar claimed to be God, neither are relevant. We're not talking about the historical existence of Jesus per se, but about his claim to be God. Do you agree?
(N.B. Give your definition of "God").
Please answer this question: did you observe Jesus yourself, to hypothesise he is God? I'm just making sure that your starting point and main source for evidence is definitely the Bible. Ie. without the Bible, you would never come to this hypothesis.
How we know what Caesar did & how we know what Jesus did are historically the same issue. With Hitler we have more types of evidence [photos, live witnesses etc], but its still the same -historic evidence. Many doubt Hitler killed the Jews, but the evidence weighs against this. I'm not sure why Jesus should be treated any differently to any other historic figure.
Without the Bible I would not have understood Jesus to be God, but I do know some people who met Jesus through a direct revelation
J: "Would you say you can test the hypothesis "the sun will rise tomorrow" using scientific method?"
I would hypothesise thus: "a new day is created by the appearance of the sun in practical terms", and then wait. If the sun appears, then the test has run at least once. If the test never runs even once, then at some point I would conclude that it is pragmatic to believe (subject to the testing process running) that a new day is not created by the appearance of the sun.
Furthermore not all "functional beliefs" are held so tentatively as safely crossing the road. If you asked anyone whether crossing the road was safe most agree it wasn't certain, but if you asked whether the sun would rise tomorrow, we would be certain. People can be "absolute" in their "functional" beliefs, and people can be open to revision with their religious beliefs. Your stereotype is typical of those discarding religion.
You make a decent point there, but then *genuinely* rational people do not hold any such beliefs as absolute. Anyone who says they are certain the sun will rise tomorrow is being irrational. No empirically based model or experience is certain.
I'm in agreement with you that no beliefs are "absolute". They are all tentative, which is why I dont go with your steroetype of religious belief as untestable. However tentativity varies. I am far more tentative about my safety crossing the road than of the sun rising.
James, what do you mean by 'religious belief'? Are you talking about empirical phenomena that have some unique association with human beings that 1/ can be demonstrated to others, or 2/ cannot ?
Menoftheinfinite used the term. I am trying to use it in the breadth of how it is used publicly, so that I'm not trying to put a meaning on it that others don't have. Therefore I assume it includes some of both. MoI seems to use it exclusively of untestable beliefs.
"Can you consider using 'religious belief' to mean 'untestable belief'" -I can consider it, but it is not a valid use of the word. I could use "car" to mean "sheep", but I dont think it would be helpful.
There are a whole range of things that come under the term "religious". Each has to be tested within its own discipline. Would you say you can test the hypothesis "the sun will rise tomorrow" using scientific method? What about "Wood killed Caroline Bryne"? History, evidence etc play a role.
K: "Can you consider using 'religious belief' to mean 'untestable belief'"
J: -I can consider it, but it is not a valid use of the word.
Then why don't you back up your belief with evidence? If you don't come up with the sensory data, your exact hypothesis, and how you disproved the unlikelihood of opposing hypotheses, then you are not providing any evidence to me to believe that you have tested your beliefs.
Sorry, but I dont agree with your distinction between functional & metaphysical beliefs. You repeatedly imply that all religious belief is upheld without reason & evidence, using the argument in Part2 that some religious people argue this, but this is not a valid argument. Many religious people uphold their beliefs because of the evidence for them.
It would be accurate to say "some" or "many" relgious belief are held without evidence. Many are held with evidence, so I'm not sure where your point gets us. If you are saying all religious belief is based on no evidence, that in itself is a belief & not rational.
Some people think their emotional feelings and non-rational experiences of various kinds constitute evidence. They are wrong. Evidence is only that if it can be shown to relate to a referent and not be merely its own reality. "I think this means this" is not evidence of that second "this".
In my opinion being a philosophic and wise atheist is the only way to achieve true happiness and escape from fear. Reality = God. We are all Infinite. Our mind places limits on everything but once you realize limits aren't there it gives you the ability to really understand what life and existence as it be actually is; tangents in a pool of infinity.
Luigi84289 8 months ago
So would there room for metaphysics in a theoretical world where every single scientific fact has been made available?
nspeert 3 years ago
I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I'll make this point: there cannot be a world where every scientific point is available - it's impossible by definition due to the naturally contingent (uncertain/incomplete) nature of any empirical model.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Can you answer my other two questions, please?
(1 day ago):
And, what are the phenomena that you presume to be testing under the category of "religious"?
And, how exactly are you testing? Using the scientific method, or, if you cannot demonstrate the proof of your hypothesis to others, how?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
Just testing to see why an earlier comment hasn't posted
mtstassie 3 years ago
Kelly, the problem I have with your questions is I'm not sure what type of proof you demand. You ask for "scientific" & "proof" -my beliefs are much more tentative than that (a fact MoI denies in his steroetype of religious views). Furthermore "Scientific" demands repeatability & even then (eg the sun) its not "proof". So could you tell me -how would you test the hypothesis "Wood killed Caroline Bryne"? I want to know what sort of "evidence" would satisfy you.
mtstassie 3 years ago
I totally accept that scientific proof is contingent on the data, and therefore never certain like an axiom, e.g. A=A. That is all proof can be.
So, what proof have you that supports your hypothesis that your data (please describe this as well) should fit in the "religious phenomena" box? I think you ought to come clean immediately if you don't have any data or made any testing.
I gather "Wood killed Caroline Bryne" refers to a real murder case in the newspapers....
KellyJones0 3 years ago
.....and in this case the convicting evidence would follow the normal pattern. E.g. motive, reliable witnesses, absence of alibi, forensic examination of body, scientific study of scene of death (e.g. how body dies), psychological studies, past history of key persons, etc.
I'm not an expert on criminology, so I wouldn't be the best one to interpret the data.
Attention-seeking behaviour of celebrities and socially vandalising media are factors.
KellyJones0 3 years ago
I suspect your problem is that you love the Absolute,so anything contingent seems week to you. I am very aware of the limits of knowledge,so think little is absolute &have to make decisions &judgements in the absence of "absolute" proof. In reality all of us have to do this,all the time. Even science does this. Any observation,all history,any 1-off event will have limits on its "provability". Failing to acknowledge this leads to demands of "religious" evidence that reinforces existing prejudice.
mtstassie 3 years ago
James, you've already indicated you define God as finite with infinite attributes. So I definitely accept you're talking about something that is not absolute, but rather something as contingent as what you might call a sneeze or a memory.
So, what exactly is your experience or evidence that gave rise to your interpretation, being 'it is God, a finite thing with infinite attributes'?
BTW, Are you saying God is definitely a finite thing with infinite attributes? Or are you unsure?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
The primary evidence that Jesus is God is the record of what he did &what happened to him, the people who saw him, what he said &did that fulfilled so much he couldn't have faked it,the people who did (& didn't) believe in him who we can read about. This is well tested, but unfortunately for "absolutes" is history, & thus,like murder cases or any claim of history, relies on a judgement about the evidence. [PS Why the jibe "come clean immediately"-this isn't a game,its a philosophical discussion]
mtstassie 3 years ago
Are you saying the Biblical accounts of Jesus is the only evidence you have of God?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
Ok, taking your last reply on the "Psychology of Mystery" page: "The only reason I believe in God is because of Jesus,"
Basically you are stuck with the Bible as your only evidence. You haven't had any sensory data or other personal experience of God. You are going purely off what others have said. Is that correct?
BTW Would you mind if we keep the discussion here in one thread?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
Sorry Kelly, but you are still doing it. I said "primary" &again you are turning that into "only","purely" etc [beware of emotionalising]. Theres lots of coroborating evidence, such as my own experience,how it fits life/human nature/relationships etc better than anything else I've heard of, but like you am looking for independent,verifyable evidence.
BTW re one thread: a)where does your question about Infinites fit? b)The type of evidence & "proof" we are seeking is crucial to the discussion.
mtstassie 3 years ago
You yourself wrote: "The only reason I believe in God is because of Jesus,"
What is the other evidence you have that Jesus is God, apart from the "record" of the New Testament (which is secondhand evidence)?
Please give specific details, not just "my own experience" and "how it fits..."
If this is too long for the comments field, how about starting a new thread at Philosoph-e Cafe ?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
By the way, did your own experience come *before* ever reading the Bible? Ie. did you observe Jesus and hypothesise that he is something you would call finite with not-finite attributes?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
My apologies. I meant primary.
Could you give me evidence about Hitler? Caesar? Each of this requires "secondhand evidence" -all history & accounts do, yet upon testing I find no reason to believe what is historically indicated isn't true.
Other evidences include: other actions of God, fulfilment of things Jesus had no control over, experiences, that it makes sense of life, that it leads to better lives, complexity of creation etc. These are dealt with better on e-Cafe, but cooborate Jesus
mtstassie 3 years ago
Neither Hitler or Caesar claimed to be God, neither are relevant. We're not talking about the historical existence of Jesus per se, but about his claim to be God. Do you agree?
(N.B. Give your definition of "God").
Please answer this question: did you observe Jesus yourself, to hypothesise he is God? I'm just making sure that your starting point and main source for evidence is definitely the Bible. Ie. without the Bible, you would never come to this hypothesis.
KellyJones0 3 years ago
How we know what Caesar did & how we know what Jesus did are historically the same issue. With Hitler we have more types of evidence [photos, live witnesses etc], but its still the same -historic evidence. Many doubt Hitler killed the Jews, but the evidence weighs against this. I'm not sure why Jesus should be treated any differently to any other historic figure.
Without the Bible I would not have understood Jesus to be God, but I do know some people who met Jesus through a direct revelation
mtstassie 3 years ago
J: "Would you say you can test the hypothesis "the sun will rise tomorrow" using scientific method?"
I would hypothesise thus: "a new day is created by the appearance of the sun in practical terms", and then wait. If the sun appears, then the test has run at least once. If the test never runs even once, then at some point I would conclude that it is pragmatic to believe (subject to the testing process running) that a new day is not created by the appearance of the sun.
KellyJones0 3 years ago
Furthermore not all "functional beliefs" are held so tentatively as safely crossing the road. If you asked anyone whether crossing the road was safe most agree it wasn't certain, but if you asked whether the sun would rise tomorrow, we would be certain. People can be "absolute" in their "functional" beliefs, and people can be open to revision with their religious beliefs. Your stereotype is typical of those discarding religion.
mtstassie 3 years ago
You make a decent point there, but then *genuinely* rational people do not hold any such beliefs as absolute. Anyone who says they are certain the sun will rise tomorrow is being irrational. No empirically based model or experience is certain.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
I'm in agreement with you that no beliefs are "absolute". They are all tentative, which is why I dont go with your steroetype of religious belief as untestable. However tentativity varies. I am far more tentative about my safety crossing the road than of the sun rising.
mtstassie 3 years ago
James, what do you mean by 'religious belief'? Are you talking about empirical phenomena that have some unique association with human beings that 1/ can be demonstrated to others, or 2/ cannot ?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
Menoftheinfinite used the term. I am trying to use it in the breadth of how it is used publicly, so that I'm not trying to put a meaning on it that others don't have. Therefore I assume it includes some of both. MoI seems to use it exclusively of untestable beliefs.
mtstassie 3 years ago
Can you consider using 'religious belief' to mean 'untestable belief' (meaning, testable by accepted rational means) ?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
And, what are the phenomena that you presume to be testing under the category of "religious"?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
And, how exactly are you testing? Using the scientific method, or, if you cannot demonstrate the proof of your hypothesis to others, how?
KellyJones0 3 years ago
"Can you consider using 'religious belief' to mean 'untestable belief'" -I can consider it, but it is not a valid use of the word. I could use "car" to mean "sheep", but I dont think it would be helpful.
There are a whole range of things that come under the term "religious". Each has to be tested within its own discipline. Would you say you can test the hypothesis "the sun will rise tomorrow" using scientific method? What about "Wood killed Caroline Bryne"? History, evidence etc play a role.
mtstassie 3 years ago
K: "Can you consider using 'religious belief' to mean 'untestable belief'"
J: -I can consider it, but it is not a valid use of the word.
Then why don't you back up your belief with evidence? If you don't come up with the sensory data, your exact hypothesis, and how you disproved the unlikelihood of opposing hypotheses, then you are not providing any evidence to me to believe that you have tested your beliefs.
KellyJones0 3 years ago
Sorry, but I dont agree with your distinction between functional & metaphysical beliefs. You repeatedly imply that all religious belief is upheld without reason & evidence, using the argument in Part2 that some religious people argue this, but this is not a valid argument. Many religious people uphold their beliefs because of the evidence for them.
mtstassie 3 years ago
Religious people believe in things that are not evidence at all. Feelings, desires, emotional needs and so forth are not evidence.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
It would be accurate to say "some" or "many" relgious belief are held without evidence. Many are held with evidence, so I'm not sure where your point gets us. If you are saying all religious belief is based on no evidence, that in itself is a belief & not rational.
mtstassie 3 years ago
Some people think their emotional feelings and non-rational experiences of various kinds constitute evidence. They are wrong. Evidence is only that if it can be shown to relate to a referent and not be merely its own reality. "I think this means this" is not evidence of that second "this".
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Excellent!
ElizabethIsabelle 3 years ago