PROOF that GOD Exists......
- Thread starter NetGuruINC
- Start date
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
I think you mean you don't see how my reasoning seems logical, but i'm not sure which reasoning you're talking about now?
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
You believe that despite investigations, evidence, and pier review, someone can somehow "Become Lost" to the knowledge they seek. I contend that their logic is fallible, not the process.
...reality is a system, completely ordered and fully intelligible, with which thought in its advance is more and more identifying itself. We may look at the growth of knowledge … as an attempt by our mind to return to union with things as they are in their ordered wholeness…. and if we take this view, our notion of truth is marked out for us. Truth is the approximation of thought to reality … Its measure is the distance thought has travelled … toward that intelligible system … The degree of truth of a particular proposition is to be judged in the first instance by its coherence with experience as a whole, ultimately by its coherence with that further whole, all comprehensive and fully articulated, in which thought can come to rest.
— Brand Blanshard
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
No, I fail to see how you fault scientific method for "Buying the lemon" over a misguided purchaser. A Buddhist who sets himself on fire used his logic and came to what he considered a reasonable conclusion. You proposed that even if someone conducted their own investigation, they might fail because of the facts collected. I contended it was the interpretation, not the facts that failed. Or was I wrong? I might have read your point wrong.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
note it is the approximation, not the co-incidence (purposefully written with hyphen so as not to get bound in the cultural attachments surrounding the word coincedence).
I contend that interpretation is inherently bracketed within the physical. to apply the tools of the physical to the expressly metaphysical is obviously not going to work. You have seemed consistently to state that you believe only in what science can prove to you. My point on this issue is that you then must except all things outside the realm of the physically investigable. Your indicated stance seems to be one privileging the scientific above all else. It is fine to construct a hierarchy of values, but to delimit the ascientific to the point of valuelessness is as dangerous as placing blind faith in unreasonable tenets. thats all. that is the only point i'm trying to make. so going around telling people all religions require people to be stupid and unethical isn't really fair. Mr. Heisenberg's point that it requires great amounts of cognitive dissonance is about as far as it can go; these people employ great cognitive dissonance.
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
I think you meant Accept, not except. I do it all the time, don't trip. And no, I don't. I don't have to accept anything which can't be proven physically. To do so would be a waste of time. Science eliminates the possible, and leaves what is. Why believe in MIGHT, when IS has so much more appeal?
And who called all religious people idiots!? Unethical, yes. And I proved that. If you set yourself on fire, your logic has failed. Not because I don't accept your beliefs, but because YOU'RE AFLAME! Logic is just the parameters you set to reason life. Infallible logic is based on what is, not what we see, or want to see, or feel we see.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
no, i meant except. as in you disregard all things that are not scientifically provable.
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Do you believe my life is somehow darkened by this approach?
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Which aspects do you refer to, exactly?
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
yes, absolutely. IF your proposition is that its a waste of time to do anything besides investigate physical reality.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
the metaphysical.
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Your mistaken. My life is fantastic. Which aspects of life am I missing?
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
I do not believe in anything, if i did i would be lying to myself. Though i do carry certain ideas, ideas that are the closest approximation to the truth, which is SCIENCE... and these ideas are ALWAYS subject to change.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
for now. we'll see how it goes if you deny that there is value in the metaphysical forever. of course we wouldn't be able to prove it. on your death bed you'll never know whether it was a better life or a worse life without any metaphysical investigation. be easy
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
You mean experiencing life? "What's it like"?
I experience this like any other human. I just don't let it effect me so wildly. I have to process each experience with caution, with science. Enter, the skeptic.
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Yes I would. Want the answer? Yes, my life would have been "More fun" with metaphysical contemplation. And more delusional. Pascals wager= A fools' bet.
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
If by value you mean comforting a widow, sure. Metaphysics appeals to our emotional side. Hence the propensity for delusion.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Well said.
Metaphysics is abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality... it is fantasy (wishful thinking), or if you attempt to make it reality they call that delusion.