stemelbow Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 42 minutes ago, Ahab said: Experts on God? Who do you think those experts are? There are experts on God who do know God and what God knows. I don't think you know who the experts on God really are. The problem here is there is no good logical argument for God. There can't really be experts on God other than those who claim to be experts. It'd be like claiming to be a physics expert without knowing anything about physics from Galileo to the present. That is largely the problem with religion and God.
Ahab Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The problem here is there is no good logical argument for God. There can't really be experts on God other than those who claim to be experts. It'd be like claiming to be a physics expert without knowing anything about physics from Galileo to the present. That is largely the problem with religion and God. Your logic is faulty. That doesn't mean logic itself doesn't make any sense. You're just doing it wrong when you think there is no good logical argument for God. One logical argument for God, among the many logical arguments there are for God, is that if different kinds of beings exist and one kind of being is more intelligent than all of the kinds of beings there are, then the most intelligent kind of being is God, with the word God referring to the most intelligent kind of being in all of existence. Another logical argument for God is that if there is one person who is the Father of all of the persons who are the same kind of being as that Father, then the Father of all of those persons is God, with the word God referring to the Father of all of those persons. Have you ever studied much about what logic is? I'm sure there is some way you can get better at understanding logic.
stemelbow Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Your logic is faulty. That doesn't mean logic itself doesn't make any sense. You're just doing it wrong when you think there is no good logical argument for God. One logical argument for God, among the many logical arguments there are for God, is that if different kinds of beings exist and one kind of being is more intelligent than all of the kinds of beings there are, then the most intelligent kind of being is God, with the word God referring to the most intelligent kind of being in all of existence. So you just redefine God to be human beings or something? Or are you saying since you assume there is a more intelligent being then humans, then that must mean there's a God? I suppose I find myself disagreeing with your second premise--that "one kind of being is more intelligent than all of the kinds of beings there are". Why do you assume that? 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Another logical argument for God is that if there is one person who is the Father of all of the persons who are the same kind of being as that Father, then the Father of all of those persons is God, with the word God referring to the Father of all of those persons. So God is redefined to being the first male human being? or are you saying that God must be the father because we assumed all humans have a common father? This seems to directly contradict your first argument which suggests God is a different kind of being than humans. 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Have you ever studied much about what logic is? I'm sure there is some way you can get better at understanding logic. By all means teach away. I'd love to understand how your two arguments for God can be considered logical.
Ahab Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So you just redefine God to be human beings or something? Not quite but something like that, and I'm not the one person who originally proposed this idea. Our Father is the same kind of being we are, whether you call that kind of being human or divine or God/god or whatever else you may choose to call it. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Or are you saying since you assume there is a more intelligent being then humans, then that must mean there's a God? I think I have explained what I have said above. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I suppose I find myself disagreeing with your second premise--that "one kind of being is more intelligent than all of the kinds of beings there are". Why do you assume that? I meant all other kinds... that one kind of being is more intelligent than all other kinds of being. And I have not assumed this. It is self-evident. Different kinds of beings are not equal in intelligence, and even among those who are the same kind of being there are varying degrees of intelligence. But taken on the whole, in general, one kind of being is more intelligent than all other kinds of beings. And it is true even if you don't agree or believe it. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So God is redefined to being the first male human being? or are you saying that God must be the father because we assumed all humans have a common father? This seems to directly contradict your first argument which suggests God is a different kind of being than humans. Apparently you have misunderstood what I said. I gave 2 good logical arguments for God and to do that in each case it was necessary to give a definition of what God is. So I did that. 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: By all means teach away. I'd love to understand how your two arguments for God can be considered logical. Already done. I have already taught you a lesson on this issue. Now be a good student and learn it.
stemelbow Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 33 minutes ago, Ahab said: Not quite but something like that, and I'm not the one person who originally proposed this idea. Our Father is the same kind of being we are, whether you call that kind of being human or divine or God/god or whatever else you may choose to call it. I think I have explained what I have said above. I meant all other kinds... that one kind of being is more intelligent than all other kinds of being. And I have not assumed this. It is self-evident. Different kinds of beings are not equal in intelligence, and even among those who are the same kind of being there are varying degrees of intelligence. But taken on the whole, in general, one kind of being is more intelligent than all other kinds of beings. And it is true even if you don't agree or believe it. Apparently you have misunderstood what I said. I gave 2 good logical arguments for God and to do that in each case it was necessary to give a definition of what God is. So I did that. Already done. I have already taught you a lesson on this issue. Now be a good student and learn it. I wouldn't say you've made a good deal of sense here. So God is really just the most intelligent of all other humans? How does that argue for a God who transcends our existence? That simply argues for a really smart human. As it spells out... Premise 1: Humans are more intelligent than other kinds of beings and intelligence varies among humans. Premise 2: God must be among the most intelligent of beings. COnclusion: God is human and is the most intelligent of all humans. A fair syllogism for your argument? It seems to me you've simply argued there must be a human who is most intelligent and then have called that one God. Premise 1: There must have been a male human before all other humans, fathering the next humans. Premise 2: Humans are the dominant species. Conclusion: Therefore God is the first male human. Is this a sum of your second argument? I don't know that you are as equipped in understanding logic as you let on, though. I'm happy to be schooled if you wish to do so.
Ahab Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I wouldn't say you've made a good deal of sense here. Knowing you as I do I wouldn't expect you to do that. 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So God is really just the most intelligent of all other humans? No, you seem to be mixing up the 2 different definitions of God. God, as a word which refers to a particular kind of being, is the word we use to refer to the most intelligent kind of being in all of existence. That is, our kind. No other kind of being is as intelligent as our kind of being. Next I will talk about the other definition of God I mentioned, referring to the Father of all of us on this planet. But perhaps I should first ask you if you know what a Father is. 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: How does that argue for a God who transcends our existence? That simply argues for a really smart human. Apparently you did not understand me correctly. 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: As it spells out... Premise 1: Humans are more intelligent than other kinds of beings and intelligence varies among humans. True statement, but I was giving you a good logical explanation for what God is as a kind of being so you should try to keep that in context. 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Premise 2: God must be among the most intelligent of beings. Both as our Father and as a particular kind of being, yes... or at least that is how we define the word God as we use it in 2 different contexts. 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: COnclusion: God is human and is the most intelligent of all humans. A fair syllogism for your argument? It seems to me you've simply argued there must be a human who is most intelligent and then have called that one God. No, not very fair. Close but not quite there. Do you want to re-evaluate your understanding and try again? 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Premise 1: There must have been a male human before all other humans, fathering the next humans. Premise 2: Humans are the dominant species. Conclusion: Therefore God is the first male human. Is this a sum of your second argument? No. I will try again to help you understand. First, God is a word, and as most words do, the word God has multipole definitions. God: 1) the most intelligent kind of being in all of existence, which is us, the kind of being we are God: 2) a word we commonly use to refer to our Father in heaven, who is not onlyu the same kind of being we are, but also the Father of all of us on this planet 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know that you are as equipped in understanding logic as you let on, though. I'm happy to be schooled if you wish to do so. Consider yourself schooled. I hope you have learned something about what God is.
Jared Livesey Posted November 9, 2020 Posted November 9, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: So should we go back to their methods of medicine too? The entire test of this life is only to see if we will do all things whatsoever God commands us (Abr. 3:25), even at the cost of our lives (JST Matt 16:27). If therefore our goal is to keep God's commandments, no more and no less, then we should do what he said to do with respect to health care, which is entirely contained in D&C 42:43-52. Quote 43 And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food, and that not by the hand of an enemy. 44 And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me. 45 Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope of a glorious resurrection. 46 And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them; 47 And they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter. 48 And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed. 49 He who hath faith to see shall see. 50 He who hath faith to hear shall hear. 51 The lame who hath faith to leap shall leap. 52 And they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have power to become my sons; and inasmuch as they break not my laws thou shalt bear their infirmities. "And that not by the hand of an enemy." Who would go to an enemy to be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food? Or, perhaps we might more appropriately ask, what divides our friends from our enemies? After all, whoever wants to save his life in this world shall lose it in the world to come (JST Matt 16:27). Quote Why do we have prophets and eternal progression if progression is delusion? The function of a prophet, if he is acting as a prophet, is to repeat the words the Lord God commands him to repeat. As for eternal progression, the phrase does not occur in the scriptures. Edited November 9, 2020 by Jared Livesey
mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2020 Author Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, stemelbow said: Granted. That is my point. many believers claim to know that which experts don't claim to know, or don't claim to be knowable. That's why the reasoning isn't followed through beyond a mere glance. It'd make religion disappear. I posted this above kind of by error so I will repeat it here And how do you know you are "right"? How do you scientifically determine the purpose of life? Or better yet how do you scientifically that life has no purpose? After all - by your own view then, scientism itself is all based only on the culture of our day and has no more "reality" than religion, right? We are in the middle of the religious "dark age" except this time around the religion is science. Both science and religion have their purposes- but science cannot even define the concept of "purpose". It tells us nothing about what is important in life, and in fact insists on not even asking the question. Yet every scientist wants to save the world - from disease, global warming, pollution, saving the whales- curing cancer -whatever their specialty is without a standard to determine what the MOST important human priority SHOULD be. There are no beliefs in science to prove what the most important "SHOULD" is They all want "equality" with no logic but a religious one to believe we SHOULD be equal? Where in history have all people been equal? One must believe it in your heart, and that belief is "religion" secular or not. All "secular" means is separation between church and state, and secular religions are growing as people finally start to understand those distinctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion#:~:text=A secular religion is a,religious qualities in earthly entities. Quote A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism,[1] communism,[2] Juche,[3] anarchism[citation needed], fascism[citation needed], nationalism[citation needed], democracy[citation needed], liberalism[citation needed], progressivism, transhumanism, Auguste Comte's Religion of Humanity, and the Cults of Reason and Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution. Logically we LDS really ARE literally "secular humanists" because we reject the supernatural- even spirit is matter, and God Himself is human. Miracles are not "supernatural"- we see them as following the laws of nature that we do not yet understand-, like perhaps a television in the middle ages would be seen as a "miracle" Our goal is the perfection of humanity. How are we "secular"? We separate religion from the state - and the history of the gospel details how the state historically has opposed us. We don't want the government messing with the exercise of religion and we hear a lot lately about how freedom of religion is being threatened today. ANY belief system - even things like capitalism vs communism are ultimately a "religion" without premises that can be proven scientifically. Edited November 10, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2020 Author Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Jared Livesey said: The entire test of this life is only to see if we will do all things whatsoever God commands us (Abr. 3:25), even at the cost of our lives (JST Matt 16:27). If therefore our goal is to keep God's commandments, no more and no less, then we should do what he said to do with respect to health care, which is entirely contained in D&C 42:43-52. And so we throw out President Nelson because he is a modern heart surgeon and heart replacements, valve replacements etc, are not mentioned in that list. No thanks. The presumption of the church is that we are open to new revelations or we would just be stuck with the bible. I thought you were LDS. Quote As for eternal progression, the phrase does not occur in the scriptures. Even IF that were true I see no reason to give that any importance. Certainly the concept is the backbone of the scriptures. Repentance is it self a "progression" as well as Jesus progressing from a child's understanding to that of an adult. Receiving any kingdom of glory is a "progression" from earth life. We know of prophets who are now called "gods"- and you do not count that as "progression?" But then if you are not LDS, I guess you would not understand the concept Edited November 10, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Jared Livesey Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: And so we throw out President Nelson because he is a modern heart surgeon and heart replacements, valve replacements etc, are not mentioned in that list. If our goal is to do as the Lord has commanded, neither more nor less, then we simply do not avail ourselves of Dr. Nelson's professional services. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The presumption of the church is that we are open to new revelations or we would just be stuck with the bible. The Lord changes not (3 Nephi 24:6), and cannot contradict himself (2 Nephi 9:17; Mosiah 15:27; 3 Nephi 27:18; 2 Timothy 2:13), and the list under consideration, which itself is a "new revelation," is a repetition of the teaching of the Bible on healthcare (James 5:14-15). The point of the teaching is to persuade us to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us (Mosiah 3:19), remembering that his hand is in all things (D&C 59:21; Mosiah 2:21; Romans 8:28). We can, of course, rebel against him, strive to control our fate, lay up treasures for ourselves on the Earth, appeal to doctors and lawyers and politicians to save and protect us from the vicissitudes of nature and our enemies and extend and improve the quality of our lives, and hopefully, whilst perhaps medicated into painlessness, die in our sleep, surrounded by our loved ones, but that's not what he asked us to do (Luke 6:20-49; Matt 5-7, 3 Nephi 12-15:10). 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Even IF that were true I see no reason to give that any importance. It is easy to check to see if it is true that the phrase "eternal progression" does not occur in the scriptures as I claim. To some, its absence might be significant, even if it is not to others. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I thought you were LDS. I am. Edited November 10, 2020 by Jared Livesey
stemelbow Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I posted this above kind of by error so I will repeat it here And how do you know you are "right"? How do you scientifically determine the purpose of life? Or better yet how do you scientifically that life has no purpose? After all - by your own view then, scientism itself is all based only on the culture of our day and has no more "reality" than religion, right? We are in the middle of the religious "dark age" except this time around the religion is science. Both science and religion have their purposes- but science cannot even define the concept of "purpose". It tells us nothing about what is important in life, and in fact insists on not even asking the question. Yet every scientist wants to save the world - from disease, global warming, pollution, saving the whales- curing cancer -whatever their specialty is without a standard to determine what the MOST important human priority SHOULD be. There are no beliefs in science to prove what the most important "SHOULD" is They all want "equality" with no logic but a religious one to believe we SHOULD be equal? Where in history have all people been equal? One must believe it in your heart, and that belief is "religion" secular or not. All "secular" means is separation between church and state, and secular religions are growing as people finally start to understand those distinctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion#:~:text=A secular religion is a,religious qualities in earthly entities. Logically we LDS really ARE literally "secular humanists" because we reject the supernatural- even spirit is matter, and God Himself is human. Miracles are not "supernatural"- we see them as following the laws of nature that we do not yet understand-, like perhaps a television in the middle ages would be seen as a "miracle" Our goal is the perfection of humanity. How are we "secular"? We separate religion from the state - and the history of the gospel details how the state historically has opposed us. We don't want the government messing with the exercise of religion and we hear a lot lately about how freedom of religion is being threatened today. ANY belief system - even things like capitalism vs communism are ultimately a "religion" without premises that can be proven scientifically. I understand you think science is religion and that miracles aren't really miracles. But, on both counts you are simply making assumptions. What laws of nature are there that we do not understand?
smac97 Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I understand you think science is religion and that miracles aren't really miracles. I like this explanation/definition of miracles. 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: But, on both counts you are simply making assumptions. What laws of nature are there that we do not understand? A few examples: How life began. Dark matter. Dark energy. Gravity. Why we need sleep. The placebo effect. Tetraneutrons. Yawns. Saturn's north pole. The "Wow" signal. Consciousness. How bicycles work. Thanks, -Smac 1
mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2020 Author Posted November 10, 2020 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: What laws of nature are there that we do not understand? Oh my. Just think about that question in itself for a minute. Do I really have to say it? We don't know what we don't know. And yet others purport to give lists of what we don't know. It just boggles the mind. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2020 Author Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Jared Livesey said: If our goal is to do as the Lord has commanded, neither more nor less, then we simply do not avail ourselves of Dr. Nelson's professional services. The Lord changes not (3 Nephi 24:6), and cannot contradict himself (2 Nephi 9:17; Mosiah 15:27; 3 Nephi 27:18; 2 Timothy 2:13), and the list under consideration, which itself is a "new revelation," is a repetition of the teaching of the Bible on healthcare (James 5:14-15). The point of the teaching is to persuade us to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us (Mosiah 3:19), remembering that his hand is in all things (D&C 59:21; Mosiah 2:21; Romans 8:28). We can, of course, rebel against him, strive to control our fate, lay up treasures for ourselves on the Earth, appeal to doctors and lawyers and politicians to save and protect us from the vicissitudes of nature and our enemies and extend and improve the quality of our lives, and hopefully, whilst perhaps medicated into painlessness, die in our sleep, surrounded by our loved ones, but that's not what he asked us to do (Luke 6:20-49; Matt 5-7, 3 Nephi 12-15:10). It is easy to check to see if it is true that the phrase "eternal progression" does not occur in the scriptures as I claim. To some, its absence might be significant, even if it is not to others. I am. The word "Bible" does not appear in the Bible either so I guess we don't need to read it, think about it or respond to questions about it. I make it a policy to answer every post that refers to me, at least out of courtesy, so that the person knows that I saw their post and read it. I saw your post and I read it. Let those who are following this discussion, if any, judge for themselves. I cannot for the life of me understand how the steps between mortal life, sin and repentance, spirit prison, paradise, resurrection, assignment to a kingdom of glory and becoming a god or cannot be classified as "eternal progression". Your logic escapes me, sorry. Edited November 10, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2020 Author Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, stemelbow said: I wouldn't say you've made a good deal of sense here. So God is really just the most intelligent of all other humans? How does that argue for a God who transcends our existence? That simply argues for a really smart human. Yep. Sounds like William James' chess player analogy to me. So go with it. This Being knows things we do not know. But I guess you think that is a null set. Or think of it as an archetype to make us feel better. Or a concept in itself expanding the idea of an "intelligent human" to infinity. An ideal to live by- taking on an unprovable assumption that makes us strive for more in life. This concept itself encourages human progression- that we CAN get "better" The concept itself has "survival value"- it is a "meme" in that word's original meaning- it is an idea that survives and spreads on its own. Beliefe in a supreme human helps create a society in which what we call "family values" predominate. And family values promote more babies and a peaceful life. It is evolution in action, but what is evolving are ideas that give humans survival values. That is one religion that could be understood by secular atheists, who believe in being the "best they can be" as a metaphor or archetype to lead them on toward their version of perfection. It can also be seen as LDS doctrine based entirely on postmodern ideas that I think could reach even atheists and make it easy to believe in "God". This was my original concept of God, but then that "concept " wonked me upside the head with several spiritual experiences that let me know that He was a real intelligence outside myself. But that is a journey no other person can take you on, you need to do it for yourself. https://iep.utm.edu/james-o/ Quote In “The Dilemma of Determinism,” James depicts his image of God with a memorable analogy, comparing God to a master chess player engaged in a give-and-take with us novices. We are free to make our own moves; yet the master knows all the moves we could possibly make, the odds of our choosing one over the others, and how best to respond to any move we choose to make. This indicates two departures from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, in that the master is interacting with us in time (rather than eternal) and does not know everything in the future, to the extent that it is freely chosen by us. In “Reflex Action and Theism,” James subscribes to a theistic belief in a personal God with whom we can maintain interpersonal relations, who possesses the deepest power in reality (not necessarily omnipotent) and a mind (not omniscient). We can love and respect God to the extent that we are committed to the pursuit of common values. In “Is Life Worth Living?” James even suggests that God may derive strength and energy from our collaboration (Will, pp. 181-182, 116, 122, 141, 61). Elsewhere, rejecting the Hegelian notion of God as an all-encompassing Absolute, he subscribes to a God that is finite in knowledge or in power or in both, one that acts in time and has a history and an environment, like us (Universe, pp. 269, 272; see Letters, vol. 2, pp. 213-215, for James’s responses to a 1904 questionnaire regarding his personal religious beliefs). See also- so that you understand this really is an LDS way of seeing the world https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126 Edited November 10, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 10, 2020 Author Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) error Edited November 10, 2020 by mfbukowski
stemelbow Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Oh my. Just think about that question in itself for a minute. Do I really have to say it? We don't know what we don't know. And yet others purport to give lists of what we don't know. It just boggles the mind. That is my point. You claimed there are laws we don't know. How do you know that?
Ahab Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That is my point. You claimed there are laws we don't know. How do you know that? We can know that we don't know what we don't know. What we can't know is nothing because eventually we can get to a point where we know everything about everything, still including what we don't know, which would then be nothing.
Jared Livesey Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I make it a policy to answer every post that refers to me, at least out of courtesy, so that the person knows that I saw their post and read it. Well, thank you for your courtesy.
Teancum Posted November 10, 2020 Posted November 10, 2020 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I posted this above kind of by error so I will repeat it here And how do you know you are "right"? How do you scientifically determine the purpose of life? Or better yet how do you scientifically that life has no purpose? After all - by your own view then, scientism itself is all based only on the culture of our day and has no more "reality" than religion, right? We are in the middle of the religious "dark age" except this time around the religion is science. Both science and religion have their purposes- but science cannot even define the concept of "purpose". It tells us nothing about what is important in life, and in fact insists on not even asking the question. Yet every scientist wants to save the world - from disease, global warming, pollution, saving the whales- curing cancer -whatever their specialty is without a standard to determine what the MOST important human priority SHOULD be. There are no beliefs in science to prove what the most important "SHOULD" is They all want "equality" with no logic but a religious one to believe we SHOULD be equal? Where in history have all people been equal? One must believe it in your heart, and that belief is "religion" secular or not. All "secular" means is separation between church and state, and secular religions are growing as people finally start to understand those distinctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion#:~:text=A secular religion is a,religious qualities in earthly entities. Logically we LDS really ARE literally "secular humanists" because we reject the supernatural- even spirit is matter, and God Himself is human. Miracles are not "supernatural"- we see them as following the laws of nature that we do not yet understand-, like perhaps a television in the middle ages would be seen as a "miracle" Our goal is the perfection of humanity. How are we "secular"? We separate religion from the state - and the history of the gospel details how the state historically has opposed us. We don't want the government messing with the exercise of religion and we hear a lot lately about how freedom of religion is being threatened today. ANY belief system - even things like capitalism vs communism are ultimately a "religion" without premises that can be proven scientifically. Who says we have to determine the purpose of life? Perhaps there is no purpose so it is a futile attempt. I agree science cannot determine the purpose in life. If one uses philosophy, religion, ethics or some other way to personally determine what life's purpose is, at least for them, then that is about the best you can do. There likely is no purpose as defined by a religion, a god, or whatever. Life's purpose is likely simply the meaning and purpose that we ourselves make of it.
Calm Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 8 hours ago, smac97 said: How bicycles work. Really? Details please. 1
Calm Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And yet others purport to give lists of what we don't know We can give lists of what we don’t understand. And we don’t understand because we lack knowledge...so there are implications of gaps in knowledge in such lists. For example, before dark matter was theorized, we had no knowledge of even the possibility it existed. Now we have knowledge of certain physical data that some theorize means dark matter exists. So we now know of the possibility, but what that possibility is we do not know in detail....we do not understand what dark matter is means the same as we do not know much about dark matter, even if it exists. So why not say it as we don’t know about dark matter? And Smac was answering the question what laws don’t we understand anyway. Edited November 11, 2020 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted November 11, 2020 Author Posted November 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Teancum said: Who says we have to determine the purpose of life? Perhaps there is no purpose so it is a futile attempt. I agree science cannot determine the purpose in life. If one uses philosophy, religion, ethics or some other way to personally determine what life's purpose is, at least for them, then that is about the best you can do. There likely is no purpose as defined by a religion, a god, or whatever. Life's purpose is likely simply the meaning and purpose that we ourselves make of it. Yep I agree. This means that therefore religion has nothing to do with scientific facts and so cannot be challenged by science or history. If believing that the Book of Mormon is historical,for example, and that gives you purpose in life, and you believe its tenets and live them, as you say, Quote "If one uses philosophy, religion, ethics or some other way to personally determine what life's purpose is, at least for them, then that is about the best you can do. .... Life's purpose is likely simply the meaning and purpose that we ourselves make of it." But then we have that sentence that I edited out above- let's look at that one Quote There likely is no purpose as defined by a religion, a god, or whatever. And there, you contradict yourself- MAYBE. IF you mean to say that there IS no purpose, then you contradict yourself by saying "Life's purpose is likely simply the meaning and purpose that we ourselves make of it. So you say BOTH "Life's purpose is likely simply the meaning and purpose that we ourselves make of it." AND "There likely is no purpose as defined by a religion, a god, or whatever." Which is it? Religon gives us ideas that might give us purpose that we then define for ourselves, just like deciding that "save the planet and stop global warming" may give our lives a purpose. 1
smac97 Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: Really? Details please. https://www.fastcompany.com/3062239/the-bicycle-is-still-a-scientific-mystery-heres-why
mfbukowski Posted November 11, 2020 Author Posted November 11, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: https://www.fastcompany.com/3062239/the-bicycle-is-still-a-scientific-mystery-heres-why Omigosh. Looks like a potential derail to me. Now we get to worry about whether or not riding a bicycle is a mystery. Great.
Recommended Posts