Cogito Ergo Sum

[Swift]

Think about what you just said and how meaningful it is. It is impossible to prove anything beyond your own thoughts because of all of the possibilities!!! That's a profound metaphysical conclusion that says volumes about what we consider to be truth or knowledge.

I find it rather pointless because it negates ALL truth and knowledge save your own thoughts. Have fun.

 

[Danoff]

I find it rather pointless because it negates ALL truth and knowledge save your own thoughts

I don't see how you can find that pointless. That's increadible. It means that you cannot be certain of anything (save 1 thing) - which has increadible impacts... including the inability to believe in God.

It means that you cannot KNOW that God exists or that that God is the God of the bible. It means that you don't understand your own reality. You don't think that has a point??

I'll tell you what the point is.

When you say "I know God exists and that there is an afterlife." You're making a claim you simply cannot make. That's the point.


So you have two choices. You can either conceed the point and admit that God may not exist. Or you can show me why I am wrong.

 

[Swift]

I don't see how you can find that pointless. That's increadible. It means that you cannot be certain of anything (save 1 thing) - which has increadible impacts... including the inability to believe in God.

It means that you cannot KNOW that God exists or that that God is the God of the bible. It means that you don't understand your own reality. You don't think that has a point??

I'll tell you what the point is.

When you say "I know God exists and that there is an afterlife." You're making a claim you simply cannot make. That's the point.


So you have two choices. You can either conceed the point and admit that God may not exist. Or you can show me why I am wrong.

This is so pointless. I'm really bored of playing your game by your rules. You don't even believe you typed that. How can you talk rationally to someone that won't believe what they do with his own thoughts?

 

[Danoff]

his is so pointless. I'm really bored of playing your game by your rules. You don't even believe you typed that. How can you talk rationally to someone that won't believe what they do with his own thoughts?

You're right. This is pointless.

 

[skicrush]

But lets say that this God did tell you that he was the God of the bible. Now you’re in a tough spot. The bible, on its face, appears to have zero credibility. There’s the plot holes, the contradictions with science and scientific observations… things like the planets orbiting the sun… things like the earth not being round… lack of any evidence of a worldwide flood and so-on. There’s the fact that the bible is written by man and sounds like an answer to all of mans questions – which immediately makes it seem contrived.

1) Does anyone have any metaphysical arguments that go against what I've written?
2) For Religious people. Can you:
- Admit that you cannot be certain God exists because you could be a brain in a vat and all of your experiences could be deception?
- Admit that if your firsthand experiences with God do not include him telling you that he is the God of the bible, that you don't know who's God you worship?
- Admit that you must question the voices in your head, even if they say they are the God of the bible?

Churches may have taught those erroneous things but nowhere in the bible does it say that the universe revolves around the earth. I think you're confusing the teachings of specific churches in the old days with things the bible ACTUALLY says. As far as the flood thing goes, we're back to a LACK of evidence, not a case of conflicting evidence. Aside from miracles, which are by definition out of the ordinary, there is nothing in the bible that specifically contradicts anything that science has PROVEN to be.

Therefore, we stop short of the conundrum, and we're back to "A religious person might read this and think that they have just as much reason to accept a god as to accept science – because they have personal evidence that a god is real and no evidence to the contrary. I submit that that much is true. You have no evidence that some god is not real… you can even view things science cannot explain (and your own personal experiences) as evidence that there is a god. So in absence of evidence to the contrary, you can logically accept that there is likely a god. But you cannot know that there is a god any more than I know that science is real – because you cannot truly know anything about your environment or the nature of your experiences. You could be a brain in a vat."

All true. You have as much proof that we're living in the matrix as I have that reality is real, or that God exists. Or that the God I think is God is the God I worship, and not some other God. The things I feel clearly tell me that what I believe to be true really IS true (including that I am truly worshipping the God I THINK I'm worshipping), but which God (and if it is MY God I'm really worshipping) is something that needs to be discovered as individually as IF there's a God in the first place, and all falls in the cogito ergo sum category.

 

[Danoff]

Churches may have taught those erroneous things but nowhere in the bible does it say that the universe revolves around the earth.

I addressed that earlier. I quoted Genesis and pointed out that I was wrong - the bible does not say the universe revolves around the Earth. However, it does take a very Earth centric view of the universe.

I think you're confusing the teachings of specific churches in the old days with things the bible ACTUALLY says. As far as the flood thing goes, we're back to a LACK of evidence, not a case of conflicting evidence. Aside from miracles, which are by definition out of the ordinary, there is nothing in the bible that specifically contradicts anything that science has PROVEN to be.

What can science prove to be true? Nothing. So no, the bible does not contradict anything scince has proven - since sience has proven nothing (and can prove nothing). However, the bible says lots of things that science has given us lots of evidence to disbelieve - like that the Earth is 6000 years old etc. etc. So we're back to the conundrum.

You have as much proof that we're living in the matrix as I have that reality is real, or that God exists.

Yes. We all have zero proof of any of those things. That's not a problem for me - I'm willing to accept that. But if a religious person accepts that then if God does exist they go to hell. If religious - you HAVE to believe something that you have no proof of. If you follow science, that is not the case.

Or that the God I think is God is the God I worship, and not some other God. The things I feel clearly tell me that what I believe to be true really IS true (including that I am truly worshipping the God I THINK I'm worshipping), but which God (and if it is MY God I'm really worshipping) is something that needs to be discovered as individually as IF there's a God in the first place, and all falls in the cogito ergo sum category.

I didn't totally follow this. I think you're saying that all of your evidence is suspect - which is true.

Again, this is not a problem for me since I'm not religious. It is a problem for religious people to admit that the existance of God is suspect.

 

[skicrush]

I didn't totally follow this. I think you're saying that all of your evidence is suspect - which is true.

Again, this is not a problem for me since I'm not religious. It is a problem for religious people to admit that the existance of God is suspect.

I don't blame you--I got a little crossed up trying to write it. What I'm saying is that from a POV external to my own, all my evidence is suspect. Much like you could never say whether I love my wife, and could even argue that there is no such thing as love. Just because you don't feel it, doesn't mean it isn't real.

 

[Danoff]

Just because you don't feel it, doesn't mean it isn't real.

It means it might not be real. Even if you do feel it - it might not be what you think it is.

 

[skicrush]

It means it might not be real. Even if you do feel it - it might not be what you think it is.

But, by your own account, as long as it is what I think it is TO ME, what does it matter to anyone else?

I would like to think that other people were sensitive enough to have faith, believe things they can't lay their hands on, etc, but they can be doubters, too if that suits their personality more.

Completely aside from the whole religion question, I'd rather go through life believing in things, than doubting everything.

 

[Danoff]

But, by your own account, as long as it is what I think it is TO ME, what does it matter to anyone else?

There is no personal truth - only truth in an absolute sense. If people have their own truths - then truth doesn't exist.

My whole point here is that you can't prove to anyone (including yourself) that it is what you think it is.

I would like to think that other people were sensitive enough to have faith, believe things they can't lay their hands on, etc, but they can be doubters, too if that suits their personality more.

You admitted in this thread that there is no reason to believe we know anything with absolute certainty (except our own existance). So why should anyone have faith?

Completely aside from the whole religion question, I'd rather go through life believing in things, than doubting everything.

You'd rather believe things that you aren't warranted in believing (logically) than accepting some uncertainty in your surroundings?? I suppose that's only human.

 

[skicrush]

There is no personal truth - only truth in an absolute sense. If people have their own truths - then truth doesn't exist.

My whole point here is that you can't prove to anyone (including yourself) that it is what you think it is.



You admitted in this thread that there is no reason to believe we know anything with absolute certainty (except our own existance). So why should anyone have faith?



You'd rather believe things that you aren't warranted in believing (logically) than accepting some uncertainty in your surroundings?? I suppose that's only human.

Are you just being argumentative? You said yourself that "you cannot know that there is a god any more than I know that science is real – because you cannot truly know anything about your environment or the nature of your experiences. You could be a brain in a vat."

IE, no one can prove anything to anyone else. I never said we couldn't know things with absolute certainty--I just said no one can prove those things to anyone else. There is far too much relativity involved. Relative to each person's own personal belief set. From a completely external, impossibly objective POV, everything might just be a dream/matrix/whatever, or it might really be real. Even what I belive is real, which includes there being a God. From my view, I'm right, and I'm sure of it. Same goes for you. Just because I acknowledge and understand your POV, does not mean I disavow anything I believe to be true. The difference is, if there is a God, one day we will ALL know it, and know absolute truth. If there is not, no one will ever know, and no one will ever know absolute truth.

The whole foundation of this thread precludes the discussion of absolutes in the first place--I was as close to happily agreeing with you as I have ever been. Then you throw in the absolute truth thing.

 

[Danoff]

The whole foundation of this thread precludes the discussion of absolutes in the first place

Can you elaborate?

From a completely external, impossibly objective POV, everything might just be a dream/matrix/whatever, or it might really be real. Even what I belive is real, which includes there being a God. From my view, I'm right, and I'm sure of it. Same goes for you.

I'm not sure of anything except that I exist - I can prove that to myself. But I'm not justified in thinking anything else is real... and neither are you.

Are you just being argumentative? You said yourself that "you cannot know that there is a god any more than I know that science is real – because you cannot truly know anything about your environment or the nature of your experiences. You could be a brain in a vat."

IE, no one can prove anything to anyone else.

No I'm not just being argumentative. I agree with all of what you quoted and your summary of it.

 

[skicrush]

Can you elaborate?



I'm not sure of anything except that I exist - I can prove that to myself. But I'm not justified in thinking anything else is real... and neither are you.



No I'm not just being argumentative. I agree with all of what you quoted and your summary of it.

If you are not justified in thinking that ANYTHING is real besides your sense of self, what would you classify as "absolute" truth?

My point is that if all you can really define as real is your sense of self, from that internal POV, everything else is only as real as YOU believe it to be. If that is true, there is NO absolute truth. This is a very Matrix-esque POV, but perfectly legitimate. And in this context, using the word "justify" seems just silly--you exist in a vacuum that must be populated by some sort of foundation.

The flip side is that there is a God, absolute truth, and everything is as real as it seems to be, including all the things we don't quite understand. And oddly enough, in this case, there's more cause for me to be justified thinking what I think than you are that the Matrix POV is the true one. In my case, there WOULD be absoulte truth, as opposed to an artificial re-creation of truth.

 

[Danoff]

If you are not justified in thinking that ANYTHING is real besides your sense of self, what would you classify as "absolute" truth?

That I exist. That is all I can classify as absolute truth in a concrete sense. In an abstract sense absolute truth is that which can be inescapably proven.

My point is that if all you can really define as real is your sense of self, from that internal POV, everything else is only as real as YOU believe it to be.

I don't follow this. If all I can define as real is my existance - nothing else is necessarily real (regardless of whether I believe it is).

The flip side is that there is a God, absolute truth, and everything is as real as it seems to be, including all the things we don't quite understand.

That's the flip side? The flip side is that we can accept things which we have no evidence against and which we have evidence for. We can accept that reality exists as we perceive it - even though we may be wrong.

Long ago, people perceieved that the Earth was flat, and they could accept that since they had no evidence to suggest otherwise. They were wrong. I could be wrong about my own nature - but I accept it due to the lack of a reason not to.