{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/6/2019 1:18:27 PM
22
-
Greetings
-
*bows in shame*?
-
it is a claim to say that god doesn't exist because we haven't seen him
-
True. But I wouldn’t make that claim.
-
After this post, if anyone makes that claim I’m going to rip them a new one
-
Go for it. I do assume you know that if someone instead said something like “I don’t see evidence of a god; therefore it’s unreasonable to believe” would be entirely different.
-
[quote]Go for it. I do assume you know that if someone instead said something like “I don’t see evidence of a god; therefore it’s unreasonable to believe” would be entirely different.[/quote]I don't understand why reality necessitates reason. Would reality not be independent of reason? If reality is dependent upon reason, then it may be argued that reality is dependent upon an intelligent entity or intelligent entities because there can be no reason without an intelligent entity performing it. If it is such a case that reality is dependent upon reason, then the entity or entities performing it would be deities.
-
I’m not sure I understand you, or how your question follows from my reply. Reality exists whether we can reason it or not. Is that what you were after? Or something else?
-
[quote]I’m not sure I understand you, or how your question follows from my reply. Reality exists whether we can reason it or not. Is that what you were after? Or something else?[/quote]That is what I was getting at. Isn't stating that something is unreasonable a non-statement in the context of truth and reality, nothing more than a waste of breath and text to state nothing at all?
-
Perhaps, unless you exist in a world where many of your peers believe otherwise. Such is the case with “god.”
-
[quote]Perhaps, unless you exist in a world where many of your peers believe otherwise. Such is the case with “god.”[/quote]But truth and reality are independent of belief and the number of believers. They have no affect on whether or not truth and reality are reasonable.
-
I agree completely. So it’s probably my fault, but I’m not sure of your point. Maybe I misunderstood you initially.
-
My point is that reason and unreason do not justify or refute belief nor disbelief because reality is independent of reason and belief.
-
[quote]My point is that reason and unreason do not justify or refute belief nor disbelief because reality is independent of reason and belief.[/quote] First of all, thank you for this discussion because I think it’s interesting and I don’t often get to have convos like this in my real life. But to actually answer you, yes reality is independent of everything. BUT IF we are to understand it properly, what do we have other than reason?
-
Edited by Cozyman Cam: 11/7/2019 1:23:00 AM[quote]First of all, thank you for this discussion because I think it’s interesting and I don’t often get to have convos like this in my real life.[/quote]You're welcome. Thank you for engaging. I enjoy the exercise too. I usually don't get this type of engagement beyond my father and brother. [quote]But to actually answer you, yes reality is independent of everything. BUT IF we are to understand it properly, what do we have other than reason?[/quote]We really haven't any other tool by ourselves. It is important to recognize this limitation. Although it is very difficult to practice, humility is the key to a more balanced perspective. We are not any more rational than our predecessors. I think the popular belief that savages are less rational than us has made it all the more difficult to submit to humiliation.
-
I agree we are limited. But we have to work with what we have within our limitations. Perhaps your point - if I can speak for you - is to recognize that we truly are limited, and maybe always will be, in what sort of knowledge we can ascertain.
-
[quote]I agree we are limited. But we have to work with what we have within our limitations. Perhaps your point - if I can speak for you - is to recognize that we truly are limited, and maybe always will be, in what sort of knowledge we can ascertain.[/quote]Yes, this is my point. Our reason is not infallible. If it were, we would be gods. That is a much more ridiculous claim than claiming God exists.
-
I’m not sure where we disagree, unless you’re claiming a god exists.
-
[quote]I’m not sure where we disagree, unless you’re claiming a god exists.[/quote]I thought we disagreed on whether or not something being unreasonable or irrational determined whether or not it is reality. It seems we agree that reality is utterly independent of reason and rationality. I do claim that God exists, though I can never prove His existence to the satisfaction of the antitheist. It's not much different than a situation where I could not prove I'd completed a task only to have someone else undo it. Because I could not prove that it was completed to the satisfaction of my supervisor, I took the blame for neglecting the task completely.
-
[quote]Atheism doesn’t make a claim. Invalid comparison.[/quote] Literally everything is a claim because we don't understand all of the universe.
-
Disbelief is not a claim. It’s like saying someone is found “not guilty.” It does not mean I think he’s innocent, just that there is not enough evidence to proclaim him guilty. It’s a null hypothesis.
-
[quote]Disbelief is not a claim. It’s like saying someone is found “not guilty.” It does not mean I think he’s innocent, just that there is not enough evidence to proclaim him guilty. It’s a null hypothesis.[/quote] The relatively of "known evidence" complicates things. I suppose that's why scientific theories are "true" until proven otherwise
