Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Those who choose to be left behind can plan all of that.
I plan to be out of here before it starts. Why go through all of that, then to rather avoid it completely.
A free gift. I mean, will you be happy that God takes away your infants to protect them?

Trust me, the Rapture is at the door even. Some of you guys say we have been waiting for 2000 years, while you continue to prove the bible right by mocking and scoffing, yet fail to understand biblical prophecy, of the events that must take place leading to the Rapture. If you seriously interested, I'll be glad to share.
When God says, Love your enemy, it doesn't mean you are my enemy in the natural. You are my enemy in the spirit, meaning you disagree with the sole purpose and plan of God to rescue those that want to be rescued from the wickedness that is soon about to fall upon this already fallen world. Who is the cause. Yep, mankind as usual.



Jesus is responsible for the commandments / covenant to the Jews in the OT. Without it, the birth of Jesus wouldn't be possible. Secondly, God is love, so likewise, if you are love, and if wickedness or evil came to take away your own family, you would do whatever to destroy it before it destroyed your family, right? Simple yes or no.
The bible has never made such claims of an easter bunny. Again, you prove the bible right by mocking. You go boy.



Where is James Bond site that the whole world goes to visit? The site that was prophesied about? The site that everyone wants a piece of?
Where is 2 billion people worshipping ol Jamsey?
Where does Jamsey proclaim creation, and when did James sacrifice his son for the world?

How do you know those people that killed in the name of God, are Godly people...??? You don't. ONly the Creator does, hence why He says He judges by the heart, and not by deeds.
Jesus said, love your neighbor, and your enemy. Are these people killing religiously actually following Christ?
If not, how can you say they follow God?

The toothfairy gave you a material reward, which is temporary, since you don't know if you will be breathing tomorrow.
Christ will give you a spiritual eternal reward. Your free choice of what reward you want.



The bible is clear that God created hell for satan and his demons.
The bible is also clear that all evil doers will have their place in the lake of fire.
Since you were born to attack the bible (like claims of being born gay etc), I'm sure you know what is "evil" in GODS eyes, by "Gods" standards.
If you fit the above, "you" can actually change that, but by no means will it go away, if you keep telling yourself God doesn't exist, or allow your friends to convince you as well.

It's so simple.
"Lord Jesus, I confess my sins, and I am sorry. Forgive me. I believe in you. Come into my heart".
After that, go and sin no more. Nothing else.

Just those few words will save you. Free will indeed.


@Liquid

Yes there is. I've been saying for a while now, that it is not possible for something to come from nothing. Organized chaos. No such thing.
Where did the energy come from. Where did the information come from. Where did ethics come from etc.

God created it, and you can know who God is, through Jesus Christ. Choice.
The incredible journey of the Jews tells you about Gods promise. The signs and wonders and prophecies in the Bible.
What a man believeth in his heart, so is he.

Ohhh look, once again you didn't answer my question.

Why is that given that last time you said.....

"I'm here until the Rapture Scaff.... Please give me that question again. I'll answer faithfully."

...and then disappeared for a week.



BTW - You said "Jesus said, love your neighbor, and your enemy. Are these people killing religiously actually following Christ?"

You seem to forget that this is the same man who beat people with a cat o'nine tails and killed a tree because it didn't give him fruit out of season. As such I have no intention of taking his hypocritical words at face value at all. The 'peace loving' symbol of your cult beats people he doesn't agree with and kills planets that don't do the impossible.

Want to take a guess how many people this atheist has assaulted with a cat o'nine tails?

 

[Denur]

I plan to be out of here before it starts. Why go through all of that, then to rather avoid it completely. A free gift. I mean, will you be happy that God takes away your infants to protect them?

Trust me, the Rapture is at the door even.

So you plan to chicken-out before the party begins? You say that the Rapture is close, but you can't possibly know that:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

 

[Mike458]

The bible is clear that God created hell for satan and his demons.
The bible is also clear that all evil doers will have their place in the lake of fire.

Therefore, if Christianity is correct (which it most likely isn't), and god created the universe, then he also must have created heaven and hell.

Since you were born to attack the bible (like claims of being born gay etc)

Because it makes no sense to rational logic!

I'm sure you know what is "evil" in GODS eyes, by "Gods" standards.

"So if you want to not be punished by a non-existent god, just follow this and you'll be fine:

Do not educate them, or expose them to critical thinking, logic or science.

Lie to them constantly about how the world works. Feed them a steady diet of mumbo jumbo dressed up like real knowledge – the jumbo jet in the whirlwind for example – and pretend that it is deep wisdom.

Make them loathe their own natural bodies and functions. Convince them they are small and weak and worthless and need redemption. Tell them everything enjoyable is grievously wrong to even think about, and that their only fun should be in grovelling to an invisible friend.

Ensure that they resent anyone who is not like them in every way – skin color, nationality, political opinion but especially creed. Make such people out to be evil and vile and give them – impotent minorities all – the fictional power to somehow oppress and persecute the vast majority who do think like you.

Teach them to laugh at and dismiss out of hand any faith but their own. Early – early mind you – make sure they are taught the difference between superstitious deadly error – that one raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people, and divine eternal truth – that another raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people.

Instruct them with all severity and import to never question for themselves – to never think for themselves – to never live for themselves – but to seek answers only in one – just one – particular set of semi-literate bronze age folk tales.

Above all – and this cannot be overemphasized – make sure they cannot spell, use correct grammar, or understand basic English words.

That should do the trick."

(Source: https://atheistdave.wordpress.com/2...t-way-to-stop-your-child-becoming-an-atheist/ )

If you fit the above, "you" can actually change that, but by no means will it go away, if you keep telling yourself God doesn't exist, or allow your friends to convince you as well.

I have no words. I just have no words. I'm done. I'm so done with your idiodicy and your CONSTANT evasion of my question here:

"What if there was a world with no religion? Would we be better off?"

This is a non-answer:

Mike, I don't know. What I do know is that there is a world of religion. Many of them. And many of them feature Jesus Christ, and that is undeniable proof that this man walked the earth 2000 years ago.
Jesus said: He who denies Me, I will deny him before my Father in heaven.
Jesus didn't force you to believe in Him. You can choose whatever your heart desires.
The bible says, what a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Mixing up process and goal.

No, just examining the process and the goal.

Did you even finish high school?

Not that it is relevant to the discussion, but yes as a matter of fact I did.
However, if it makes you feel better, I wasn't honor roll by any stretch of the imagination.

SCJ, you obviously didn't understand the word "coherently", so I bolded it for you above.

It means the ability to communicate clearly and logically.

And what exactly do you find "incoherent" about it?

I'm a little unclear on what you are trying to explain with your example, so:

If all people were removed from the World, would your God still exist?

Without individuals to perceive your God, would he cease to exist?

Respectfully,
GTsail

On the first question, he may still exist, but having no way to know about it, that would be the same as if he did not.

On the second, he would cease to exist as far as a perceptible reality, yes.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

And what exactly do you find "incoherent" about it?

None of your arguments make any sense because they defy basic logic and common sense, and you have never produced evidence of an acceptable standard. It's that simple.

 

[Denur]

No, just examining the process and the goal.

I was under the impression that you are claiming that there is no such thing as 100% objectivity. And that because objectivity can only be achieved by subjective means. I disagree with that. Yes, it is widely accepted in scientific circles that there can be no 100% objective certainty, because a scientific theory must be falsifiable. But what you appear to fail to realize, is that a scientific theory is based on facts, objectively measurable facts. It's in the explanation of those facts where there can be different insights or where some uncertainties remain. We can 100% objectively measure an object's properties, like size, weight, composition, color etc., but disagree on e.g. its purpose.

 

[DQuaN]

Those who choose to be left behind can plan all of that.
I plan to be out of here before it starts.

Err....

What exactly to you mean by this? It almost sounds like you are in some kind of suicide cult.

I'd really like to know the answer to this.

 

[GTsail]

On the first question, he may still exist, but having no way to know about it, that would be the same as if he did not.

Does your answer make sense to you?

That the Universe would be the same either with your God, or without your God, if there were no people in the Universe?


To me, there would be quite a difference between these two situations if your God existed.


Unless you are saying that your God has absolutely no influence on the Universe?

If this is the case, then I guess it would make sense to think that there is no difference between these two situations.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[GBO Possum]

And what exactly do you find "incoherent" about it?

I found the post you quoted (your own) to be incoherent. The entire thing was, to me, meaningless.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring to your attention a fascinating exhibit.

Here we have a believer that is so engrossed in belief that he cannot imagine any other way to be. When it is explained to him how other people observe and judge things without belief, he finds a way to attribute those things to belief. When objectivity is explained to him, he finds a way to attribute it to belief. When logic is explained to him, he finds a way to attribute it to belief. Everything is fundamentally a belief, to this man.

That's not a fundamental exception, but the fundamental rule of reality.
Everything is of belief, because the dividing line and bottom line is not at objective and subjective, but at choice.
If you have choice everything is of belief. They are mutually exclusive.
Choice is an exercise in belief.
Logic is just a resource for choice unto belief and it is ultimately subjective since it is dependent on perception.
Or what one perceives to be logical.
Now does that mean logic cannot be mostly objective?
Of course not.
My impression at this point is, you are saying that objectivity or at least what is percieved to be objective, supercedes choice, belief or something to that effect?
Is that correct?

Here we have a believer whose beliefs are so deeply embedded that he is unable to contemplate anything that does not come about as a result of belief. That's what most people call closed-minded, the inability to comprehend the thoughts and opinions of others.

Sorry but that is misstated, based on assumption and misapplication.
Close minded is established by what you believe, not the fact you believe.
Nothing in what I believe prohibits comprehension of thoughts and opinions of others.
Quite the opposite actually.
However, agreement is a separate matter and is conditionally based.
Comprehension is still needed but will not necessarily meet the conditions.

OK, give me an example of something that is not of belief?

One might imagine the consternation such a person might face when considering "I think, therefore I am". Were he to cease to believe that he thought and therefore he was, he might poof out of existence.
Luckily, those of us who are braver have tried this. No poof. Honest.

I have no problem with "I think, therefore I am". It's just another perception.
A bit shallow and incomplete perhaps, but probably better than "I feel, therefore I am", that seems to be the popular new trend of the day.
Although debatable I guess, the latter could be said to contain as much legitamacy as the former.

SCJ, you completely avoided the task I put to you. If the universe is subjective, what observations would be made, and what observations would be made that could disprove this hypothesis?
likewise you said it is my hypothesis
I submit to you that no possible observation can disprove it, and therefore it's not a valid hypothesis.

Look, you are the one that told me to "fill in the blanks", remember?
I can't be responsible because you don't like the way I filled them in.

Just so I am sure, which hypothesis are you referring too?
I've had several floating around in here.
And what exactly are you seeking to establish?

 

[JKgo]

... TL; DR.

 

[Exorcet]

That's not a fundamental exception, but the fundamental rule of reality.
Everything is of belief, because the dividing line and bottom line is not at objective and subjective, but at choice.
If you have choice everything is of belief. They are mutually exclusive.
Choice is an exercise in belief.
Logic is just a resource for choice unto belief and it is ultimately subjective since it is dependent on perception.

You're making a mistake that's taking something part true and making it totally wrong. Logic has nothing to do with choice or belief. You can consult logic to make a choice, and perception will influence what you may be making a decision on, but logic is independent of all of it.

Humans are limited to directly examining only their perception, this much is true. This does not mean we operate on belief. Logically, you operate on evidence, which is not belief. Imagine that I see fire. Out of all the times I've perceived fire and put my hand to it, my hand became hot. Never has there been a different outcome. So it's 99.99999999% likely that the fire I see now is hot and I will act based on that assumption. This is not belief, it's making a decision through logic based on evidence.

 

[Stylel_Code]

That's not a fundamental exception, but the fundamental rule of reality.
Everything is of belief, because the dividing line and bottom line is not at objective and subjective, but at choice.
If you have choice everything is of belief. They are mutually exclusive.
Choice is an exercise in belief.
Logic is just a resource for choice unto belief and it is ultimately subjective since it is dependent on perception.
Or what one perceives to be logical.
Now does that mean logic cannot be mostly objective?
Of course not.
My impression at this point is, you are saying that objectivity or at least what is percieved to be objective, supercedes choice, belief or something to that effect?
Is that correct?



Sorry but that is misstated, based on assumption and misapplication.
Close minded is established by what you believe, not the fact you believe.
Nothing in what I believe prohibits comprehension of thoughts and opinions of others.
Quite the opposite actually.
However, agreement is a separate matter and is conditionally based.
Comprehension is still needed but will not necessarily meet the conditions.

OK, give me an example of something that is not of belief?



I have no problem with "I think, therefore I am". It's just another perception.
A bit shallow and incomplete perhaps, but probably better than "I feel, therefore I am", that seems to be the popular new trend of the day.
Although debatable I guess, the latter could be said to contain as much legitamacy as the former.



Look, you are the one that told me to "fill in the blanks", remember?
I can't be responsible because you don't like the way I filled them in.

Just so I am sure, which hypothesis are you referring too?
I've had several floating around in here.
And what exactly are you seeking to establish?

You seem to think that everything established using human mind is subjective. Now this cannot be true for everything, there are things in the universe that are transcendant and that stay always the same.

1+1=2 right? You'd say it's an assumption or belief or ect.. If it were a mouse who would have written this down would it still be subjective of human mind? You cannot find any contradictions with it, even if an alien would have come down to write it. It's not that our human mind is limited, it is simply that it is TRUE. There are some transcendant truth in our universe that you cannot argue about. I know that if I walk accelerate by my own I consume more energy. Is this subjective? Well try to find some contradiction to it.
If Allan says Mercedes is better than BMW, is this true? Well in this case you could find some contradiction to this statement which shows BMW actually has some better things than Mercedes, but that his statement is purely subjective since it can be proven to be false in some cases.

This is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

 

[doctorrg]

Humans are limited to directly examining only their perception, this much is true. This does not mean we operate on belief.

Exactly this.

That's not a fundamental exception, but the fundamental rule of reality.

There is no fundamental rule of reality. Reality is what it is.

Everything is of belief, because the dividing line and bottom line is not at objective and subjective, but at choice.

Belief, Objective, Subjective, Choice are just words. Words we use to communicate. If we do not attribute the same meaning to these words, communication will fail. Before we can sensibly use these words in communication, we must first agree on what each of these words mean.

What exactly do these words mean to you?

If you have choice everything is of belief. They are mutually exclusive.
Choice is an exercise in belief.
Logic is just a resource for choice unto belief and it is ultimately subjective since it is dependent on perception.
Or what one perceives to be logical.
Now does that mean logic cannot be mostly objective?
Of course not.
My impression at this point is, you are saying that objectivity or at least what is percieved to be objective, supercedes choice, belief or something to that effect?
Is that correct?

There is a fundamental difference between what we call knowledge and what we call belief. Not because there "ultimately is", but because we, as human beings, have decided that such distinction is meaningful. We have decided what we consider to be knowledge, what we consider to be belief, and what all these words mean to us. Our reality is based on knowledge, not on belief. Objective is what we call a reality we have understood to share. This doesn't make it any less subjective, it merely makes it verified. Objective reality isn't really anything but verified subjective reality. It doesn't make any sense to attribute the word objective with anything else. It has, for instance, absolutely nothing to do with how things really are, outside of human perception. In fact, how things really are, outside of human perception, is utterly irrelevant. Objectivity has meaning within human perception and human understanding. We do mean the same thing when we say "objective", correct?

You seem to think that everything established using human mind is subjective. Now this cannot be true for everything, there are things in the universe that are transcendant and that stay always the same.

1+1=2 right?

I hope you don't mean to say 1+1=2 is somehow transcendant?

You'd say it's an assumption or belief or ect.. If it were a mouse who would have written this down would it still be subjective of human mind?

Why would it have any meaning to a mouse in the first place? It's a part of human language, it's an abstraction we humans use in order to calculate. We'd expect any being capable of abstract thought to use such abstractions, but why should this hold any meaning to a mouse? Why should this hold any truth value to a mouse?

You cannot find any contradictions with it, even if an alien would have come down to write it. It's not that our human mind is limited, it is simply that it is TRUE.

I really can't agree here.

There are some transcendant truth in our universe that you cannot argue about.

I think I may just have an issue with the word transcendant.

I know that if I walk accelerate by my own I consume more energy. Is this subjective? Well try to find some contradiction to it.

It's a fact, based on knowledge. Not sure what it's got to do with some airy fairy concept of transcendant truth.

If Allan says Mercedes is better than BMW, is this true? Well in this case you could find some contradiction to this statement which shows BMW actually has some better things than Mercedes, but that his statement is purely subjective since it can be proven to be false in some cases.

This is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

Then again, that fire is hot is a completely subjective experience to me. One I seem to be sharing with others, but subjective nonetheless.

Do you believe in God?

To re-address the subject again...

My answer to that question really depends on what exactly is meant by "God". God seemingly means so many different things to so many different people, so how could the question as it stands possibly be answered? Any answer will most certainly be misunderstood, as the question itself is unclear.

 

[Imari]

My impression at this point is, you are saying that objectivity or at least what is percieved to be objective, supercedes choice, belief or something to that effect?
Is that correct?

No. I'm saying that you are incapable of imagining the universe as anything other than what you believe it to be.

If I explain to you how I see the universe, you immediately twist that to incorporate your own beliefs.

Sorry but that is misstated, based on assumption and misapplication.
Close minded is established by what you believe, not the fact you believe.
Nothing in what I believe prohibits comprehension of thoughts and opinions of others.
Quite the opposite actually.

You say that, but there's evidence aplenty to the contrary.

OK, give me an example of something that is not of belief?

I already gave you one, I think therefore I am.

I have no problem with "I think, therefore I am". It's just another perception.

A perception of what?

Look, you are the one that told me to "fill in the blanks", remember?
I can't be responsible because you don't like the way I filled them in.

Just so I am sure, which hypothesis are you referring too?
I've had several floating around in here.
And what exactly are you seeking to establish?

You didn't fill in any blanks. Here, I'll repost the post for you again, because you obviously didn't read it the first time.

Let's think about this sensibly, and try to disprove our hypotheses.

If things are objective, then we would expect observations to be similar regardless of who or what is observing them. Differences in observations (such as between a normal and a colour blind observer) may be explained by objective differences in the observer, and similar observers would be expected to make similar observations. If we find that observers that are fundamentally similar are making different observations, then that would suggest that objective reality is not correct. In particular, if we find that the same observer is making different observations when presented with the same phenomenon, that would strongly suggest that objective reality is incorrect.

If things are subjective, then we would expect observations to...what? You fill in the blanks here. It's your hypothesis, I won't put words in your mouth. Explain what you would expect to happen, and explain at least one set of circumstances that could happen that would suggest that the idea of subjective reality is incorrect.

==========

Then again, that fire is hot is a completely subjective experience to me. One I seem to be sharing with others, but subjective nonetheless.

That fire feels hot is subjective. That fire has certain properties is not. Those properties to most people are perceived as heat, light, and various other things.

It's entirely possible that someone might feel fire as cold, due to some odd difference in their brain. But they would still be perceiving the effect of infrared radiation on their body.

That is the objective part. Not the part about what you feel, but the part about what causes the feeling. No matter what your perception is, it can be traced back to an objective phenomenon that is the same for everyone, even though it may interact with different observers in different ways.

If subjective reality was true, then there would be no common phenomenon that could link those different perceptions. Everyone would be in a unique universe in which there was entirely different events. You and I could both watch an eclipse, but because subjective events would be different we could never watch the same eclipse.

Common sense tells us that this is bollocks. Even though you and I might see the eclipse differently, perhaps I have vision problems and you don't, we're still both witnessing the same event and can describe the objective reality that caused our perceptions. Provided we're intelligent enough and have sufficient information to define that objective event.

 

[doctorrg]

That fire feels hot is subjective. That fire has certain properties is not. Those properties to most people are perceived as heat, light, and various other things.

How do we know of these properties?

It's entirely possible that someone might feel fire as cold, due to some odd difference in their brain. But they would still be perceiving the effect of infrared radiation on their body.

How do we know of what we call infrared radiation?

That is the objective part. Not the part about what you feel, but the part about what causes the feeling. No matter what your perception is, it can be traced back to an objective phenomenon that is the same for everyone, even though it may interact with different observers in different ways.

What causes the feeling is just something else that is perceived. Is it any more objective merely because there is a different mode of perception? What makes it objective is that we have acknowledged the existence of other standpoints verifying our perception. It doesn't at all change the quality of the perception, or the quality of our subjective experience. That is what I wanted to highlight here, i.e. I did not want to confuse a subjective experience with an opinion of what car is better. A subjective experience is just that, a subjective experience, and it can very well be objective.

If subjective reality was true, then there would be no common phenomenon that could link those different perceptions.

Huh?

Everyone would be in a unique universe in which there was entirely different events. You and I could both watch an eclipse, but because subjective events would be different we could never watch the same eclipse.

What I was saying is that regardless of whether anyone else watches the same eclipse as I or not, it does not change my subjective experience of it. My experience isn't, in this sense, any less objective just because nobody else watches it. Why can't something subjective not be equally objective? What I was trying to highlight is that subjective doesn't automatically mean not objective.

Common sense tells us that this is bollocks. Even though you and I might see the eclipse differently, perhaps I have vision problems and you don't, we're still both witnessing the same event and can describe the objective reality that caused our perceptions. Provided we're intelligent enough and have sufficient information to define that objective event.

What?? The objective reality that caused our perceptions? The event itself is objective. It is because I have acknowledged you and everyone else and we all see (more or less) the same thing. But, everything we perceive and understand resides within what we perceive and understand. Even what we understand to have caused our perception, again, is perceived by us. Or rather, it is how we perceive it to be. We have no grasp on what really is. Nor do we need to. It has no bearing on our reality.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

How do we know of these properties?

 

[doctorrg]

And you can know the temperature without perception? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Stylel_Code]

And you can know the temperature without perception? Is that what you're saying?

Well we cannot know it if we die. But are you saying that reality only exists in our mind?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

And you can know the temperature without perception? Is that what you're saying?

It has a temperature whether or not we perceive one.

 

[doctorrg]

It has a temperature whether or not we perceive one.

Yeah, so? It doesn't change that it has no meaning outside of our perception, or does it?

Well we cannot know it if we die. But are you saying that reality only exists in our mind?

I'm saying reality, as we perceive and understand it, only exists within our minds. That doesn't make me doubt that there is something we do perceive and understand.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Yeah, so? It doesn't change that it has no meaning outside of our perception, or does it?

It does have meaning outside of our perception. The temperature of the flame is a result of a number of factors in the formation of such a reaction, and the temperature of that reaction has implications which we may not perceive.

What's your fundamental point, anyway? That fire is hot?

 

[Stylel_Code]

Yeah, so? It doesn't change that it has no meaning outside of our perception, or does it?

But it exists. And whether it has a meaning or not is just based upon our perception of reality. Knowing whether it is universal or not is another question. But do you believe that reality disappears once we die?

 

[TenEightyOne]

And you can know the temperature without perception? Is that what you're saying?

Let's say we have a furnace running. The temperature of that furnace is being recorded by a data-logger. No immediate human intervention is required for the data-logger to measure and record the temps at preset intervals.

For me to know what temps have been recorded I need to see, hear or touch (braille) a readout in a script and/or language that I understand, I use perception and cognition to interpret those images/sounds/feelings into usable data in my head. However, if I'm late in traffic I still know that there is a temperature being recorded but I don't know what it is until I 'look'.

If I died in a traffic accident on the way to the furnace the temperature would continue to exist for other people to cognise, whether or not they were pre-cognisant of it. Those are basically very obvious things. My will or belief cannot change the temperature in any given scale, it continues to be.

 

[doctorrg]

It does have meaning outside of our perception. The temperature of the flame is a result of a number of factors in the formation of such a reaction, and the temperature of that reaction has implications which we may not perceive.

Which we may not perceive, but measure? How do you measure without perception?

What's your fundamental point, anyway? That fire is hot?

We cannot know what exists outside of our own perception. That doesn't mean we'd have to doubt that something exists.

But it exists. And whether it has a meaning or not is just based upon our perception of reality. Knowing whether it is universal or not is another question. But do you believe that reality disappears once we die?

Surely, what we consider to be reality, that which is our perception and understanding, will no longer be if we're no longer here. Why should it be. Reality in itself will be, but that is a different matter.

Let's say we have a furnace running. The temperature of that furnace is being recorded by a data-logger. No immediate human intervention is required for the data-logger to measure and record the temps at preset intervals.

For me to know what temps have been recorded I need to see, hear or touch (braille) a readout in a script and/or language that I understand, I use perception and cognition to interpret those images/sounds/feelings into usable data in my head. However, if I'm late in traffic I still know that there is a temperature being recorded but I don't know what it is until I 'look'.

If I died in a traffic accident on the way to the furnace the temperature would continue to exist for other people to cognise, whether or not they were pre-cognisant of it. Those are basically very obvious things. My will or belief cannot change the temperature in any given scale, it continues to be.

How can you clearly describe events requiring human perception and understanding and then argue these aren't needed?

 

[Stylel_Code]

What?? The objective reality that caused our perceptions? The event itself is objective. It is because I have acknowledged you and everyone else and we all see (more or less) the same thing. But, everything we perceive and understand resides within what we perceive and understand. Even what we understand to have caused our perception, again, is perceived by us. Or rather, it is how we perceive it to be. We have no grasp on what really is. Nor do we need to. It has no bearing on our reality.

So you think any events taking place in reality or anything are just things we acknowledged to define? Well, then everything are just words right?
Is a table just something we see everyday and we acknolwedged to call it "table" just for making our minds clear? Or is a table more than simply a word? If you remove the word "table" is the table not a table anymore? Just molecules?
But further than that you know that when you approach a table, you hit it. You cannot go further because it occupies space. To objects rebound. These objects exist independently of our mind. They have qualities like color and so on, and maybe these qualities are based upon our subjective mind. But you cannot deny that these objects exist outside our mind.
The molecules of the table exist. And maybe our mind shaped them to become "tables" but these exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Surely, what we consider to be reality, that which is our perception and understanding, will no longer be if we're no longer here. Why should it be. Reality in itself will be, but that is a different matter.

I think you're tripping yourself up here. Nobody's arguing that our perception of reality doesn't end when we die (apart from Sky Fairy Believers).

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Which we may not perceive, but measure? How do you measure without perception?

You measure.

We cannot know what exists outside of our own perception. That doesn't mean we'd have to doubt that something exists.

I know that electricity is caused by the movement of electrons. I can't perceive electrons, but I still know it. Explain that.

 

[doctorrg]

So you think any events taking place in reality or anything are just things we acknowledged to define? Well, then everything are just words right?
Is a table just something we see everyday and we acknolwedged to call it "table" just for making our minds clear? Or is a table more than simply a word? If you remove the word "table" is the table not a table anymore? Just molecules?
But further than that you know that when you approach a table, you hit it. You cannot go further because it occupies space. To objects rebound. These objects exist independently of our mind. They have qualities like color and so on, and maybe these qualities are based upon our subjective mind. But you cannot deny that these objects exist outside our mind.
The molecules of the table exist. And maybe our mind shaped them to become "tables" but these exist.

Molecules itself is an entirely human concept. We have no reason to believe Molecules exist in reality itself. Something exists which we have understood to be molecules.

I think you're tripping yourself up here. Nobody's arguing that our perception of reality doesn't end when we die (apart from Sky Fairy Believers).

I'm just responding. Reality, as we understand it, is our perception. Reality in itself is something we've acknowledged exists, but can't really say anything about. If nobody's arguing that, why do people post quoting what I've said?

You measure.


I know that electricity is caused by the movement of electrons. I can't perceive electrons, but I still know it. Explain that.

Would you know it if you wouldn't be able to perceive? Explain to me how you could have come to that knowledge without perception.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

None of your arguments make any sense because they defy basic logic and common sense, and you have never produced evidence of an acceptable standard. It's that simple.

I found the post you quoted (your own) to be incoherent. The entire thing was, to me, meaningless.

I think you are going to like my answer here fellas.
The post I quoted did contain for the most part spiritual concepts which are not generally comprehendable
to the carnal mind.
That being the case, it would appear incoherent.

Does your answer make sense to you?

Yes, but only from the standpoint of the hypothetical.
Otherwise no it doesn't.

That the Universe would be the same either with your God, or without your God, if there were no people in the Universe?

Again under the hypothetical that isn't the question.
The question is, with no people and consequently no perception, how can it be established or known that he exists?

To me, there would be quite a difference between these two situations if your God existed.

Unless you are saying that your God has absolutely no influence on the Universe?

In reality he does, but again thats not under the hypothetical of no perception.

I was under the impression that you are claiming that there is no such thing as 100% objectivity. And that because objectivity can only be achieved by subjective means. I disagree with that. Yes, it is widely accepted in scientific circles that there can be no 100% objective certainty, because a scientific theory must be falsifiable. But what you appear to fail to realize, is that a scientific theory is based on facts, objectively measurable facts. It's in the explanation of those facts where there can be different insights or where some uncertainties remain. We can 100% objectively measure an object's properties, like size, weight, composition, color etc., but disagree on e.g. its purpose.

You seem to be admitting I am right and wrong at the same time.
And you are mixing two different things.

A theory, and the result of a Scientific test to establish properties are separate entities.
The test is usually extremely narrow and confined steps which should give the best chance to maximize objectivity and minimize subjectivity.
A theory is usually much more open and resultingly more exposed on the subjective side.
It maybe very objective, then again may not be.
Either way however since the basis for establishment is of subjective perceptional means, and given that exposure, it is all but impossible to conclusively declare results 100% objective, even though it is possible they could be.

You're making a mistake that's taking something part true and making it totally wrong. Logic has nothing to do with choice or belief. You can consult logic to make a choice, and perception will influence what you may be making a decision on, but logic is independent of all of it.

Humans are limited to directly examining only their perception, this much is true. This does not mean we operate on belief. Logically, you operate on evidence, which is not belief. Imagine that I see fire. Out of all the times I've perceived fire and put my hand to it, my hand became hot. Never has there been a different outcome. So it's 99.99999999% likely that the fire I see now is hot and I will act based on that assumption. This is not belief, it's making a decision through logic based on evidence.

I agree except for one thing.

Why and how, are you severing belief from the equation?
Or on what legitimate grounds are you basing severability.
In reality or as a fundamental rule, a person acts or does not act, from the basis of belief.
Those beliefs may or may not be based in logic, fact, or evidence.

The principles of belief, are precisely what the term "seeing is believing" is based upon.
And that is my contention, in that "belief" is unseverable from a decision, as a fundamental rule.