Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - God
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

God

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 15>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Jaketejas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 27 2018
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2267
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jaketejas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 17:56
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "taking rational thought to the extreme." Can you please elaborate? My exercise in rational thought was to try to help me figure out what I believe without leaning on preconceived notions. Rational thought took me only so far but nevertheless the journey was worth it. I'm not as wishy washy in my thinking as before, although I still don't have answers to many questions.
Back to Top
Jaketejas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 27 2018
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2267
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jaketejas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 17:22
My understanding: When an otherwise gifted kid runs out in the street to chase a ball and the parents yell "You aren't using the brains you were born with!" That kid isn't using common sense. Sense we all should have in common. Not using good sense is when you rush into something (especially when it is too good to be true) without thinking things through. And, hidden biases and prejudices are those that were ingrained into your head by your environment and that you should probably consciously try to be aware of and fight against. Yes?
Back to Top
Tillerman88 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tillerman88 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 16:00

LOL .... there are literally countless references to the bibliography on that subject, or else look them up in the web. Therefore, you'd better step further from the common sense of those dictionaries definitions to fully acknowledge the differences between common sense and good sense. Have a good night. And good fun!..
.



Edited by Tillerman88 - June 20 2019 at 16:01
The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaldJean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 15:19
Originally posted by Tillerman88 Tillerman88 wrote:

Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

Originally posted by Tillerman88 Tillerman88 wrote:

Originally posted by Jaketejas Jaketejas wrote:

I think we value many of the same things. I'm not a statistician per se, although I apply statistics in my analyses. I think where we may or may not differ is that when we talk about kindness, love, anger, etc., I believe that these qualities are neither good nor evil. What I think is good is applying love at the right time, applying kindness in the right way, ... even anger. A mother who loves her child so much that she smothers and spoils him to the point of his becoming a spoiled brat is not doing good. A soldier angry at an enemy who is committing moral atrocities is justified in that anger. So, moral law and good and evil are not just emotions or qualities to be sought after. Whether or not an emotion or quality is good or evil depends on the context in which it is applied. Sometimes the good action is the one that does not result in a better world for you, but it is the contrary one where you take the brunt in place of someone else. So, I think that there must be a basis for this right and wrong. The conscience does it's nudging, but is not itself the basis. And, that is just about as far as my reasoning can take me.
 
Your quite good points here steered me to joining in on this discussion. Your thoughts clearly evidenced that logical reasoning doesn't imply good sense (something often lacking in today's "moral laws" as well as in the way laws are put in practice), a lack that often occurs when rational thinking is taken to the extreme.


If by "good sense" you mean "common sense" I have to answer you with Albert Einstein: "Common sense is nothing but a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18" (original German quote: "Gesunder Menschenverstand ist eigentlich nur eine Anhäufung von Vorurteilen, die man bis zum 18. Lebensjahr erworben hat").
 
Nope, by no means I would mean it....... we part company in our viewpoint there if you think they can ever mean the same thing. For the record, they are two very different things:
Common sense is characterised by a chaotic, fragmentary, incoherent and inconsequential aggregate of disparate conceptions, fitting in the social and cultural position of those masses whose philosophy it refers to.
On the other hand, good sense is inherently critical, coherent and consequential, as much as Philosophy (again in my POV) is criticism and the superseding of common sense,  as well as the superseding of Religion....

well, I have to support Friede. if in doubt refer to the dictionaries. and the dictionary definitions of "common sense" and "good sense" are very much alike; in some dictionaries even identical. I can give examples if you want me to

Edited by BaldJean - June 20 2019 at 15:22


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Tillerman88 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tillerman88 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 14:53
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

Originally posted by Tillerman88 Tillerman88 wrote:

Originally posted by Jaketejas Jaketejas wrote:

I think we value many of the same things. I'm not a statistician per se, although I apply statistics in my analyses. I think where we may or may not differ is that when we talk about kindness, love, anger, etc., I believe that these qualities are neither good nor evil. What I think is good is applying love at the right time, applying kindness in the right way, ... even anger. A mother who loves her child so much that she smothers and spoils him to the point of his becoming a spoiled brat is not doing good. A soldier angry at an enemy who is committing moral atrocities is justified in that anger. So, moral law and good and evil are not just emotions or qualities to be sought after. Whether or not an emotion or quality is good or evil depends on the context in which it is applied. Sometimes the good action is the one that does not result in a better world for you, but it is the contrary one where you take the brunt in place of someone else. So, I think that there must be a basis for this right and wrong. The conscience does it's nudging, but is not itself the basis. And, that is just about as far as my reasoning can take me.
 
Your quite good points here steered me to joining in on this discussion. Your thoughts clearly evidenced that logical reasoning doesn't imply good sense (something often lacking in today's "moral laws" as well as in the way laws are put in practice), a lack that often occurs when rational thinking is taken to the extreme.


If by "good sense" you mean "common sense" I have to answer you with Albert Einstein: "Common sense is nothing but a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18" (original German quote: "Gesunder Menschenverstand ist eigentlich nur eine Anhäufung von Vorurteilen, die man bis zum 18. Lebensjahr erworben hat").
 
Nope, by no means I would mean it....... we part company in our viewpoint there if you think they can ever mean the same thing. For the record, they are two very different things:
Common sense is characterised by a chaotic, fragmentary, incoherent and inconsequential aggregate of disparate conceptions, fitting in the social and cultural position of those masses whose philosophy it refers to.
On the other hand, good sense is inherently critical, coherent and consequential, as much as Philosophy (again in my POV) is criticism and the superseding of common sense,  as well as the superseding of Religion....
.



Edited by Tillerman88 - June 20 2019 at 14:56
The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaldJean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 14:03
I will give a detailed answer to this, but for now I just want to say that I find this discussion to be really refreshing and intellectually stimulating


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38808
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 13:35
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

t seems to me that you have a kind of odd definition of God, at least in my opinion. you seem to think that God would have to be some kind of extraneous phenomenon and in contradiction to the laws of physics or at least in contradiction to scientific thinking. but that is not so at all.

somehow you remind me of a certain joke: a very pious man is out with his boat which somehow acquires a leak, and he is about to drown. being a pious man he prays to God to rescue him. a ship appears, and the captain offers to take him aboard, but he says: "no, God will save me". a helicopter appears with a rope ladder to save him; again he says: "no, God will save me". a fisher boat appears to rescue him; again he says: "no, God will save me". finally he drowns. after his death he meets God and complains to him: "I am a pious man and prayed for your help. why did you not save me "? answers God: "I sent you a ship, a helicopter and a fisher boat; what more do you want"?


You got me wrong, I'm not an absolutist and would never say that God must be this, or must be that. There are many different definitions of god, and I don't work with just one. We had a very long conversation/ semi-debate on this before some years ago (unless it was Friede), wish I could remember the thread, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough on my beliefs and non-beliefs.   Because I married a born again Christian, I often do operate in the context of what they've told me about about what they think God is, but I know many different people have different ideas.

Personally, I think that if there is a God, then God would be part of the "natural" universe or multiverse and tend to prefer the Spinoza conception of God.


what I tried to tell you with my joke is that although by your own admission you had some experiences that could be called "revelational" you steadfastly stick to them being just some by-product of your brain. I am actually quite certain that even if God appeared right in front of you and told you he existed (not that this would be consistent with my concept of God; I only say this to bring a point across) you would still not be convinced.

I may be wrong with this, but to me it appears as if for some reason the thought of a divine being frightens you and you have to call out "no, no; just a product of my brain" to reassure yourself.

however, is ascribing such strange powers to the brain really consistent with the method of Occam's razor?


I liked the joke, and earlier in the thread I wrote something myself that could relate to that somewhat. It's not that witty because I wrote it:

"It certainly might seem ungracious to pray hard for a sign and then casually reject it.

The setting: a sunny day in parched lands. Moses wanders alone.

Moses: "Yahweh, give me a sign!"

God conjures up a rainbow

Moses: "I don't find that sign very convincing. It could be a natural phenomenon. Give me another sign!"

God sets a bush alight

Moses: "That could still be down to natural causes. Give me another sign!"

God: "Oh for heaven's sake!" [strikes Moses down with lightning]

Moses [badly singed]: "Yeah, I think that will do, erm even if it... [Moses thinks better of it as thunder rumbles] No, never mind, that will do very nicely thank you.""

I've thought about what it would take to convince me, and I can't say with certainty without experiencing it, but I have quite a few ideas. Having what seems to be God suddenly appear to me and do something that seems truly miraculous would be more convincing to me than getting a phone call from someone claiming to be God telling me that my computer is infected with the Satanvirus, but he will cure it if I give Him remote access and asks for my credit card number.

I certainly wouldn't automatically dismiss it if it seemed amazing, especially if I thought it could be verified, and if God and I hung out (like not just in my head) and he became a regular feature in my life and shared some of the secrets of the universe with me (not like, hey read the Bible, but more "here's an equation that will astound all of the physicists and through osmosis here's what it means"), I think I'd accept it (not with absolute certainty as I hold no position with absolute certainty, and I don't need to to believe that things are true). It still might not be God....

If God appeared to me, and there was no later evidence beyond that experience to determine that it was more than a product of my brain, or extraterrestrial aliens with sophisticated technology pretending to be God, that someone had drugged me etc., I would at the least have doubts. I might be convinced at the time, but then think of other possible reasons why it might have happened.

While I hold no position with absolute certainty, I do think that I could be convinced given the right conditions and hold that conviction. I'm not a solipsist, let alone a hard solipsist, but I don't even know with certainty that more exists than me etc.. Perhaps I am God, but I've never given myself the right sign, but I digress.

It would depend on the circumstances, but after seeing a vision of what appears to be God, and choosing between hypothesis 1: It really was a God, and hypothesis 2: It was a hallucination, I do think that number two would be more likely and require the least assumptions.   I've had what I believe to be hallucinations before, both when I had high fever, and when I've taken hallucinogens such as LSD, but I have never found so-called evidence for the existence of God compelling (like, hey, a rainbow, that's evidence and proof that God exists -- I've heard that from someone). Hey, the God vision could be an acid flashback or I might have dreamed it. Now if I was with others and we shared the experience, that would be much more convincing. Or if God came to me in a dream and gave me the knowledge to cure all forms of cancer and I remembered it after waking up and it worked, that would also be quite convincing. It still might not be God, it could be aliens, some hidden brain-power, or something else.

Depending on the nature of God, I am not afraid of there being a God. I don't like the idea of a God that demands eternal worship or sends non-believers to hell, as well as damning those who don't believe in a particular religion. I'm not keen on the Abrahamic God as stories go. Other conceptions I find far more pleasing. But what I would like doesn't make one conception more likely than another, or maybe it does for me. Who knows? I would like there to be a wonderful afterlife. I would rather not think that this is all we've got. I don't like the idea of eternal torment so much. I would like to believe in a kind and loving, and possibly sexy, God. By the way, I do have some God fear built in, as just writing sexy there made me nervous. I've never managed to shake certain fears that come from some religious upbringing.

Edited by Logan - June 20 2019 at 13:54
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaldJean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 12:47
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

it seems to me that you have a kind of odd definition of God, at least in my opinion. you seem to think that God would have to be some kind of extraneous phenomenon and in contradiction to the laws of physics or at least in contradiction to scientific thinking. but that is not so at all.

somehow you remind me of a certain joke: a very pious man is out with his boat which somehow acquires a leak, and he is about to drown. being a pious man he prays to God to rescue him. a ship appears, and the captain offers to take him aboard, but he says: "no, God will save me". a helicopter appears with a rope ladder to save him; again he says: "no, God will save me". a fisher boat appears to rescue him; again he says: "no, God will save me". finally he drowns. after his death he meets God and complains to him: "I am a pious man and prayed for your help. why did you not save me "? answers God: "I sent you a ship, a helicopter and a fisher boat; what more do you want"?


You got me wrong, I'm not an absolutist and would never say that God must be this, or must be that. There are many different definitions of god, and I don't work with just one. We had a very long conversation/ semi-debate on this before some years ago (unless it was Friede), wish I could remember the thread, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough on my beliefs and non-beliefs.   Because I married a born again Christian, I often do operate in the context of what they've told me about about what they think God is, but I know many different people have different ideas.

Personally, I think that if there is a God, then God would be part of the "natural" universe or multiverse and tend to prefer the Spinoza conception of God.

what I tried to tell you with my joke is that although by your own admission you had some experiences that could be called "revelational" you steadfastly stick to them being just some by-product of your brain. I am actually quite certain that even if God appeared right in front of you and told you he existed (not that this would be consistent with my concept of God; I only say this to bring a point across) you would still not be convinced; it would still be just your brain playing some strange trick to you.

I may be wrong with this, but to me it appears as if for some reason the thought of a divine being frightens you and you have to call out "no, no; just a product of my brain" to reassure yourself.

however, is ascribing such strange powers to the brain really consistent with the method of Occam's razor?


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Jaketejas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 27 2018
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2267
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jaketejas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 12:45
You are right. We probably shouldn't say words like must, but in logical reasoning it happens. My bad! The reason I say that if a creator God exists, should be outside the universe is because the assumption is that God created the universe and therefore, how could the creator God exist solely within the creation, especially at the point of creation? Yes, the creator God may be able to intersect the creation once it is created, but to create within the creation at the onset seems illogical. As a result, I find it an exercise in futility to try to detect God with scientific instruments. Perhaps you have another view?
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaldJean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 12:22
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

it seems to me that you have a kind of odd definition of God, at least in my opinion. you seem to think that God would have to be some kind of extraneous phenomenon and in contradiction to the laws of physics or at least in contradiction to scientific thinking. but that is not so at all.

somehow you remind me of a certain joke: a very pious man is out with his boat which somehow acquires a leak, and he is about to drown. being a pious man he prays to God to rescue him. a ship appears, and the captain offers to take him aboard, but he says: "no, God will save me". a helicopter appears with a rope ladder to save him; again he says: "no, God will save me". a fisher boat appears to rescue him; again he says: "no, God will save me". finally he drowns. after his death he meets God and complains to him: "I am a pious man and prayed for your help. why did you not save me "? answers God: "I sent you a ship, a helicopter and a fisher boat; what more do you want"?


You got me wrong, I'm not an absolutist and would never say that God must be this, or must be that. There are many different definitions of god, and I don't work with just one. We had a very long conversation/ semi-debate on this before some years ago (unless it was Friede), wish I could remember the thread, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough on my beliefs and non-beliefs.   Because I married a born again Christian, I often do operate in the context of what they've told me about about what they think God is, but I know many different people have different ideas.

Personally, I think that if there is a God, then God would be part of the "natural" universe or multiverse and tend to prefer the Spinoza conception of God.

what I tried to tell you with my joke is that although by your own admission you had some experiences that could be called "revelational" you steadfastly stick to them being just some by-product of your brain. I am actually quite certain that even if God appeared right in front of you and told you he existed (not that this would be consistent with my concept of God; I only say this to bring a point across) you would still not be convinced.

I may be wrong with this, but to me it appears as if for some reason the thought of a divine being frightens you and you have to call out "no, no; just a product of my brain" to reassure yourself.

however, is ascribing such strange powers to the brain really consistent with the method of Occam's razor?


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
TenYearsAfter View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 01 2018
Location: Aruba
Status: Offline
Points: 347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TenYearsAfter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 11:53
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

I believe that god is created by belief.
 

I once read "God not created mankind, but mankind created God", for me that tells the story about religion.
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15512
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 11:48
I believe that god is created by belief.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38808
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 11:38
Originally posted by YESESIS YESESIS wrote:

Wow, this thread has kind of exploded since I posted that last night. Anyway, I might have asked before for some sign but it certainly wasn't with as much outpouring of emotion as that day, of that I'm sure. And again no other night of my life have I turned on the TV and right there is a program trying to prove the existence God(I don't remember it that well now, only saw it the one time). But that night it felt very strongly like God was answering me. That's what I believe happened, and great point by BaldJean that it maybe can't truly be understood by someone who didn't experience the same thing.



It's been quite an interesting discussion and I'm rather glad you bumped this thread (except that I lost time on other things that I should have been doing what with all the responding, but I visit the forum for discussion, so no real complaints). Thanks for sharing.   
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaldFriede Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 09:17
Originally posted by Tillerman88 Tillerman88 wrote:

Originally posted by Jaketejas Jaketejas wrote:

I think we value many of the same things. I'm not a statistician per se, although I apply statistics in my analyses. I think where we may or may not differ is that when we talk about kindness, love, anger, etc., I believe that these qualities are neither good nor evil. What I think is good is applying love at the right time, applying kindness in the right way, ... even anger. A mother who loves her child so much that she smothers and spoils him to the point of his becoming a spoiled brat is not doing good. A soldier angry at an enemy who is committing moral atrocities is justified in that anger. So, moral law and good and evil are not just emotions or qualities to be sought after. Whether or not an emotion or quality is good or evil depends on the context in which it is applied. Sometimes the good action is the one that does not result in a better world for you, but it is the contrary one where you take the brunt in place of someone else. So, I think that there must be a basis for this right and wrong. The conscience does it's nudging, but is not itself the basis. And, that is just about as far as my reasoning can take me.
 
Your quite good points here steered me to joining in on this discussion. Your thoughts clearly evidenced that logical reasoning doesn't imply good sense (something often lacking in today's "moral laws" as well as in the way laws are put in practice), a lack that often occurs when rational thinking is taken to the extreme.

If by "good sense" you mean "common sense" I have to answer you with Albert Einstein: "Common sense is nothing but a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18" (original German quote: "Gesunder Menschenverstand ist eigentlich nur eine Anhäufung von Vorurteilen, die man bis zum 18. Lebensjahr erworben hat").


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
Erenan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2018
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 103
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Erenan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 09:09
What exactly does "basis" mean in this context? Is the question about epistemological justification?
Back to Top
Tillerman88 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tillerman88 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2019 at 08:16
Originally posted by Jaketejas Jaketejas wrote:

I think we value many of the same things. I'm not a statistician per se, although I apply statistics in my analyses. I think where we may or may not differ is that when we talk about kindness, love, anger, etc., I believe that these qualities are neither good nor evil. What I think is good is applying love at the right time, applying kindness in the right way, ... even anger. A mother who loves her child so much that she smothers and spoils him to the point of his becoming a spoiled brat is not doing good. A soldier angry at an enemy who is committing moral atrocities is justified in that anger. So, moral law and good and evil are not just emotions or qualities to be sought after. Whether or not an emotion or quality is good or evil depends on the context in which it is applied. Sometimes the good action is the one that does not result in a better world for you, but it is the contrary one where you take the brunt in place of someone else. So, I think that there must be a basis for this right and wrong. The conscience does it's nudging, but is not itself the basis. And, that is just about as far as my reasoning can take me.
 
Your quite good points here steered me to joining in on this discussion. Your thoughts clearly evidenced that logical reasoning doesn't imply good sense (something often lacking in today's "moral laws" as well as in the way laws are put in practice), a lack that often occurs when rational thinking is taken to the extreme.
.



Edited by Tillerman88 - June 20 2019 at 08:18
The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38808
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2019 at 23:46
That's interesting. It seems there was some confusion as I never intended to imply that Occam's Razor is the apparent reasoning behind the quote. Jaketejas was responding to a post I made to Yesesis about his revelation where I brought up Occam'r razor, and earlier in the thread I had responded to his revelation by starting my post with "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I feel that both concepts apply to the claim/ revelation. They both relate to what I have said in this thread on a particular matter, and I would argue that one can find relations between the concepts themselves. Methinks that it was a more mundane comment than you inferred.

I'm not convinced that Occam's razor always, or does indeed at all, favour divine intervention because that requires the assumption that God exists, the assumption that God is omnipotent, the assumption that God created the universe and other assumptions about the nature of God.   And then one gets into the whole if a God was required to create the universe, was another needed to create God? And so on. It's not as simple as we only require one assumption, God, we then have to make assumptions about God.

Are you familiar with the Solomonoff prediction and Occam's razor?

I'm going to lazily quote from an article on this instead of trying to explain it in my own words (it's late): https://unherd.com/2018/09/can-occams-razor-prove-god-doesnt-exist/

Originally posted by Tom Chivers Tom Chivers wrote:

...the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne, in a 2010 paper, deployed Occam’s razor when he suggested that God is the simplest explanation for the universe, because God is a single thing. “God did it” is certainly simpler to say than “the universe emerged from quantum fluctuations in space-time”. But I would say that Occam’s razor is an argument against the existence of God. Who’s right?

Conveniently, in the 1960s, the mathematicians Ray Solomonoff and Andrey Kolmogorov developed a mathematically formalised version of Occam’s razor. One version of it is known as ‘minimum message length‘, and it asks: what is the shortest computer program that could produce what we’re seeing?

Let’s start with a simpler example than the creation of the universe: producing a string of numbers. I’ve taken this example from a Czech mathematician/computer scientist called Michal Koucký. He gives three strings of numbers: 33333333333, 31415926535, and 84354279521. If you wanted to write a program that carried on those strings for a million digits, what’s the shortest it could be?

The first you could do very easily: a simple bit of code saying “print the number 3 a million times”. You could do it in four lines of the beginners’ programming language BASIC.

The other two look random. But, in fact, the second string is simply the first 11 digits of pi, and you could print it out to a million digits by using one of the many quite simple algorithms which determine the digits of pi.

The third, however, is truly random. To write it out to a million digits you would need the program to specify all one million of them.

According to the ‘minimum message-length’ version of Occam’s razor, the first string is the simplest; the second is nearly as simple; and the third is the most complex.

So what does this mean for Swinburne? Well, the equations needed to describe the Big Bang are certainly complex. But they are sufficiently simple for humans to have written them. The algorithms needed to describe God – an all-powerful, all-knowing being – are not. We haven’t even managed to write software that’s as powerful as a human brain yet. From a minimum message-length perspective, God is much more complex – and therefore unlikely – than physics.

The same is true of evolution – you can quite easily write a program that approximates evolution by natural selection. But an intelligence sufficient to design all the creatures that evolution has made would be amazingly hard to program.

It also has implications for arguments within science. The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum theory, which says that every fraction of a second the universe splits into billions of parallel universes, sounds complex. The alternative, the “Copenhagen” interpretation, which says that quantum events aren’t resolved until they are observed, needs only one universe, and so sounds simpler.

But the program you’d need to create millions of universes would be pretty much the same as a program needed to create one universe – just have an extra line in it which says “do that again”, essentially – while a program that had to keep track of what every human in the world was looking at would be much more complex. According to minimum message-length Occam’s razor, a cosmos consisting of infinite universes can be ‘simpler’ than one that contains just one.

None of this means that these arguments are correct. The Copenhagen interpretation might be right despite being more complex. God might still exist; if the evidence shows that intelligent creation is more likely than the Big Bang, then it doesn’t matter how simple the theories are. But it means that you need more evidence for them.

William of Ockham was by all accounts one of the finest philosophical minds of his time, but he was also a friar and a Christian. I don’t know if he would be pleased to see me using his razor as an argument against the existence of God. But I think he would appreciate the simplicity of Solomonoff and Kolmogorov’s update of his argument for simplicity.
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Polymorphia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2019 at 22:33
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by Jaketejas Jaketejas wrote:

I appreciate your sharing different viewpoints, and that you put up with my attempts at humor. Don't you think that Occam's Razor (or the related law of simplicity) is rather limited? Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now. Yet, here we are, and it is a humbling experience.


Also known as the law of parsimony. Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one that should be selected (and/or most likely). And it also relates to something I said earlier in this thread, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

No I don't, and I find your application problematic. Occam's razor is predictive, and if none had existed, none would be making the predictions and presenting competing hypotheses. When working with Occam's razor, you start with known quantities for hypotheses, and you weigh them up. Saying that "Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now" is an assumption of yours, and I don't believe that it is a good or really relevant use of the principles/methodology of Occam's razor. Does our non-existence require less assumptions at any time? Would it ever have been predictable, and to who?   Is this an anomaly? As a determinist, I think that we were bound to exist, but there is quantum fluctuation to consider, but that's another matter. I exist and expect that before that I didn't exist and at a later date I won't exist (at least in this state). I'm not sure why that must be humbling either.
That quote ["Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"], while not wrong , is entirely unrelated to Occam's Razor (which I also don't think is necessarily wrong, but... I'll get to that later). Tongue

The conclusion with the fewest assumptions, in the physical world, is pretty much synonymous with the cause event which takes up the shortest length of time and smallest amount of space using the weakest force (relative to the energy of its proposed source). Imagine that you were weighing the guilt of two defendants against one another. And hour before the crime occurred, defendant A was identified in the area and defendant B was identified an hour's drive away. In this case, according Occam's Razor, it is more likely that defendant A committed the crime, even though it is still possible that Defendant B is guilty, no?* I have a point with this, but I want to know if you agree thus far. 

*Obviously the evidence is circumstantial so the argument would not work in court, but "innocent until proven guilty" is only a dialectic methodological assumption based on the premise that it is ethically preferable for a guilty party to go free than for an innocent party to be punished. To boot, we are only weighing probability here, not sentencing someone to death; geez, lighten up.


Edit: for precision


If you don't mind, I'm putting in the parts that you edited out, since otherwise context can be lost, and one might miss the point of what I'm responding to as this is about how Occam's razor relates to our existence, or something. For this reason I tend to quote in full. I know I didn't answer it at as well as I should have, and I'm hoping that where you are going will respond to Jaketejas' comment as well as my response to it. Hopefully he'll elaborate too on his concept.

I would be interested to know from your perspective how there can be no possible relation between Occam's razor and the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence quote.   Of course I never said it's the same, but to find no relation between the concepts? But you said that would get to that. Maybe I'm someone who find thinks more interrelated than they actually are (I have a holistic sort of perspective and am definitely a pattern-seeking animal). I expect one wouldn't make such a statement without having tried to think it out from various angles to try to find some relation. As a non-absolutist, I avoid such absolute statements. They relate to me and they both relate to what I've been saying since page two of this thread. We should not be trying to look for overly complex solutions to problems, but instead we should be looking for simpler solutions that fit the circumstances that require less assumptions and less extraordinary reasons (was it a coincidence or Divine intervention, something else....? to get to the start of this avenue). Of course Occam's razor is not the be all and end all, and is often a good starting point for our approach when choosing betwixt competing hypotheses without sufficient evidence to make a claim. To believe extraordinary claims often requires making extraordinary assumptions, so one demands extraordinary evidence. They are both approaches to seeking truth or likelihood as I see it, but then that would be a relation..

As to your example, I get how it logically follows from your prior description, and knowing that it's not enough reason to make a determination or even that I would think that Occam's razor should be consciously applied there (the razor should be used with caution as it's quite sharp), nor that it would work in a court of law, then fine I will say that suspect A is the more likely candidate based on what we know so far based on your framing, especially since to quote Aristotle, "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."


I'll probably get the quoting wrong and have to edit.
Despite returning obsessively to the source context to make sure I have everything correct in context, I like to cut things up so that people know exactly what part I'm replying to and don't miss any crucial details. But I'll play by these rules. 

When I say "unrelated," I should be more precise. I mean that Occam's Razor is not what to me is the apparent reasoning behind the quote - that reasoning being somewhat at odds with Occam's Razor when applied to God as an explanation for events. They are related when limited to only natural explanations (Defendant C was an hour by sonic jet away, so perhaps C took a sonic jet to the scene of the crime!). 

That court example was really just an illustration of what I meant by my definition which you didn't really comment on directly, but I will assume that you agree with it, since you determined your primary suspect in a way that was consistent with it. My point is this: God, being omnipotent, requires no physical process. In other words, his process requires an infinitely small amount of time and space. Will and being are the same. This is inherent and necessary for him to create ex nihilo. Because his simplicity of process, Occam's Razor always favors Divine intervention as an explanation in every case. That God divinely intervenes in every event is not something even Christians believe. It is what I believe is the real problem with the God of the Gaps argument. Not that divine intervention can't explain anything, but that it can explain everything and quite simply. It is counterproductive to the aims of science, for instance, which is why many Christian scientists hold a methodological assumption of naturalism. They don't necessarily believe that the miraculous cannot happen, but in order for them to perform their job of determining natural causation, they must assume for the moment that the miraculous did not happen. 

Anyway, that "extraordinary claims" quote is more in line with the reasoning of these scientists. That is to say, it is based on experience, assuming a "future conformable to the past." In our daily lives we do not necessarily always experience a miraculous intervention which defies physics. This is a different mode of determining probability and it does not favor the Divine miraculous intervention which defies physics. As you pointed out, one should be cautious with Occam's Razor. I suppose this comment is more a result of me being anal about trivial details, so, uh, while I'm here...

What Jean describes here: 
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

somehow you remind me of a certain joke: a very pious man is out with his boat which somehow acquires a leak, and he is about to drown. being a pious man he prays to God to rescue him. a ship appears, and the captain offers to take him aboard, but he says: "no, God will save me". a helicopter appears with a rope ladder to save him; again he says: "no, God will save me". a fisher boat appears to rescue him; again he says: "no, God will save me". finally he drowns. after his death he meets God and complains to him: "I am a pious man and prayed for your help. why did you not save me "? answers God: "I sent you a ship, a helicopter and a fisher boat; what more do you want"?

Is more in line with how I (and many others) conceive the manifest will of God in the everyday, as Providential, or as a result of materializing a world in which said event happens rather than causing said event to happen miraculously. That is to say - coincidence as you probably generally define it (natural causation succeeding the big bang), just said with not so materialist of a tone.
Back to Top
Jaketejas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 27 2018
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2267
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jaketejas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2019 at 22:27
I'm not sure if you saw my comment "I'm not on a soapbox here. Maybe someone else has a different viewpoint." I welcome other perspectives on philosophy. I find the discussion interesting, and I thank folks for sharing their views, as well as how they came about them. Isn't that what a forum is for?
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13390
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2019 at 22:23
Originally posted by Jaketejas Jaketejas wrote:

But, if you want to share your views on religion, feel free.

I already have. And the less said about religion, the better.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 15>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.282 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.