Originally posted by no1marauderActually, a person who dismisses something without even examining it is arrogant - regardless of which theory he defends.
Amazing. I would think the person who claimed he met and chatted with an all-powerful being that hardly anybody else sees would be the one who is "arrogant" not the one who says he's full of crap. A lot of people claim that they have seen aliens, too, so you are being "ignorant and arrogant" to say there is no evidence for their existence, aren't you?
...[text shortened]... t and arrogant" not to believe in on this site. http://www.thelivingweb.net/ufos.html
I did think about the alien claims (a favourite topic of mine as a child). However, there are two significant differences. First, the number of claims of people encountering God/Being/the Infinite/whatever far far outnumbers the number the people claiming to have encountered aliens. Purely from an evidentiary perspective, therefore, the former is more worthy of consideration (not necessarily acceptance!) than the latter.
Second, an encounter with an alien would be expected to yield undisputed physical evidence - and there are no known examples of any. Claims to meet God would not be expected to yield physical evidence (except with miracles - and we do have many!), so that is a weakness with that position. Nevertheless, the necessary existence of God does have philosophical arguments behind it (however hotly disputed) - aliens do not. So, net-net, I'd call it a tie.
As an aside, you're posting a strawman again when you assert that I claimed that people who do not believe in those who claim to see God are ignorant and arrogant. I claimed no such thing. I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to dismiss it a priori.
Originally posted by lucifershammerJust an innocent question - are you dismissing the existance of aliens or merely people meeting them??
Actually, a person who dismisses something without even examining it is arrogant - regardless of which theory he defends.
I did think about the alien claims (a favourite topic of mine as a child). However, there are two significant differences. First, the number of claims of people encountering God/Being/the Infinite/whatever far far outnumbers the ...[text shortened]... claimed no such thing. I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to dismiss it a priori.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs to your last paragraph:
Actually, a person who dismisses something without even examining it is arrogant - regardless of which theory he defends.
I did think about the alien claims (a favourite topic of mine as a child). However, there are two significant differences. First, the number of claims of people encountering God/Being/the Infinite/whatever far far outnumbers the ...[text shortened]... claimed no such thing. I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to dismiss it a priori.
LH: It is incorrect to authoritatively state that we have never met a God - plenty of people have claimed to do so throughout history. Unless every single claim has been comprehensively debunked, such a statement is, at best, ignorance and, at worst, arrogance.
What did you claim again???
Originally posted by lucifershammerGive us the numbers, then.
I did think about the alien claims (a favourite topic of mine as a child). However, there are two significant differences. First, the number of claims of people encountering God/Being/the Infinite/whatever far far outnumbers the number the people claiming to have encountered aliens. Purely from an evidentiary perspective, therefore, the former is more worthy of consideration (not necessarily acceptance!) than the latter.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAliens appearing to theistic people might of course be taken as gods (Chariots of the Gods, anyone? 🙂 ). You're on shaky ground with the alien thing, LH.
Give us the numbers, then.
Then there the Little People to consider. Tales of encounters with leprechauns, fairies, pixies, Sidhe, and so on, abound--are they to dismissed? Are they evidence of God? What to make of them?
(Jung, I think it was, said that yesterday's encounters with divinity are today's alien abductions--rewiring the archetypal circuitry).
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH, honestly. I've never met anyone holding on to his arguments as vigorously as you. I admire that. 🙂
You would love Descartes. 🙂
Nevertheless, the second part of your argument is incorrect. Knowing that you exist does not alter the probability of beings of other kinds existing. For instance, based on your arguments, the probability of humans existing should (from your POV) be higher than that of single-cell organisms. Nevertheless, both empirically and from the evolutionist's pet theory of abiogenesis, that would be incorrect.
The fact that I exist, and that my existence is the only thing I can be sure of, doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of other kinds of beings. What I meant was that from the perspective of self, it is more likely that others like me would exist, than that another entity entirely exists.
God made Adam in his own image. I would tend to believe that God is not one, but in fact many, sapient, humanoid lifeforms, then. That, to me, is more likely than God being an omniscient, all-encompassing entity that I can't even begin to imagine. (Granted, when talking about making Adam in his own image, we could be talking about the inner identity; the soul, and not the exterior; the flesh.)
I would also think it more likely that the creator and whom you choose to call God is not necessarily the same. It seems to me, that putting all the honour in one God being responsible for everything (up until Adam), is in fact a perfect example of humans trying to simplify the whole nature of the universe. So, whereas the idea is appealing in that it helps you get past the problem of understanding our place in this universe, it doesn't actually answer the real question about us and the universe.
Having a simplistic religion like that is more like taking a drug to escape reality, than to face it.
But that's my point of view, and starting to recognize your debating nature, I expect you'll argue against it.
Originally posted by stockenDoes anyone still seriously believe the only thing I can know for sure is that I exist?
LH, honestly. I've never met anyone holding on to his arguments as vigorously as you. I admire that. 🙂
The fact that I exist, and that my existence is the only thing I can be sure of, doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of other kinds of beings. What I meant was that from the perspective of self, it is more likely that others like me would ...[text shortened]... of view, and starting to recognize your debating nature, I expect you'll argue against it.
This is an utter perversion of the normal use of the word "know".
I know my computer exists. I know this message exists. And so on.
Originally posted by dottewellEverything you 'know' is simply electrical impulses in your brain. Of course, you can only percieve your brain using the senses you have, which of course report back to your brain as a series of electical impulses...
Does anyone still seriously believe the only thing I can know for sure is that I exist?
This is an utter perversion of the normal use of the word "know".
I know my computer exists. I know this message exists. And so on.
See the problem? I'd say you can't prove the existance of anything outside your own head, but since you can no more prove your head exists than you can prove the moon exists it's a bit of a moot point.....
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf I bring my head into violent contact with yours, you'll realise there's something outside it.
See the problem? I'd say you can't prove the existance of anything outside your own head, but since you can no more prove your head exists than you can prove the moon exists it's a bit of a moot point.....
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, I disagree. Mental concepts do no reduce to physical concepts. We need a "language of the mental". This is not the same as saying the mind could exist without the brain; but a mind is not simply a brain.
Everything you 'know' is simply electrical impulses in your brain. Of course, you can only percieve your brain using the senses you have, which of course report back to your brain as a series of electical impulses...
See the problem? I'd say you can't prove the existance of anything outside your own head, but since you can no more prove your head exists than you can prove the moon exists it's a bit of a moot point.....
[edit: what counts as "proving" that you or I exist? Surely the fact I could see you, talk to you, etc.]
Originally posted by dottewellEver heard of optical illusions? Some people see things that the rest of us can't see. Some people also hear things that the rest of us can't hear. Our senses can be misguiding. And I don't necessarily mean that one persons optical illusion is false because I can't see it. It may be my perception that's faulty for all I know.
No, I disagree. Mental concepts do no reduce to physical concepts. We need a "language of the mental". This is not the same as saying the mind could exist without the brain; but a mind is not simply a brain.
[edit: what counts as "proving" that you or I exist? Surely the fact I could see you, talk to you, etc.]
However, the point I made in reference to LH, was that I haven't seen God, nor have I seen aliens. From the perspective of self, it seems more likely to me, that there could be aliens than that there would be a God.
This matter about knowing things is somewhat a different subject. It all depends on how far you're willing to stretch the notion of knowing something.
Originally posted by stocken"Our senses can be misguiding." Of course. There are criteria for saying that someone is undergoing an optical illusion (independent verification, etc.)
Ever heard of optical illusions? Some people see things that the rest of us can't see. Some people also hear things that the rest of us can't hear. Our senses can be misguiding. And I don't necessarily mean that one persons optical illusion is false because I can't see it. It may be my perception that's faulty for all I know.
However, the point I made in ...[text shortened]... ect. It all depends on how far you're willing to stretch the notion of knowing something.
But to say that everyone is undergoing a total sensory illusion every second of every day?
That would make no sense.
(How come everyone reads Descartes but no one reads Wittgenstein?)
Originally posted by stocken"Some people see things that the rest of us can't see. Some people also hear things that the rest of us can't hear."
Ever heard of optical illusions? Some people see things that the rest of us can't see. Some people also hear things that the rest of us can't hear. Our senses can be misguiding. And I don't necessarily mean that one persons optical illusion is false because I can't see it. It may be my perception that's faulty for all I know.
However, the point I made in ...[text shortened]... ect. It all depends on how far you're willing to stretch the notion of knowing something.
About half the people on this forum stocken!!!
Anyways, I don't care - you're all figments of my imagination. Even the pain of the 'heed' [as we call it in scottish] when you stick one in....