This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Okay, so let's get to the bottom of this

#191Faust_8Posted 5/8/2013 3:16:09 PM
How does one "spiritually" discover "spiritual" things? Or, anything?

When has it ever been done in all of human history?

I think you're operating under a different definition of "discover" or "know." Because the way I see it, spirituality can give you FAITH about something but that's very different from actually KNOWING something.

Even if you talk purely of intangible things like "is humanity good" or "what is morality"...how exactly does spirituality alone actually come up with facts about them? How is it possible to know something--objectively, as an undeniable fact--using NOTHING but spirituality?

This is why I have never been able to understand where you're coming from, Julian. Because I literally can't think of a single thing that humans have ever "known" just by spirituality or philosophy. The only facts that I know of are the ones derived from observation or testing or mathematics.

You allude to spiritually discovering things but never cite examples or how it works or...anything, besides that it vaguely exists. And I'm beginning to think it's nothing but having faith to you, which you should understand is logically and by definition different than knowledge.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#192Julian_CaesarPosted 5/9/2013 2:50:35 PM
From: Faust_8 | #187
So after FINALLY answering my queries as to what ways you can know/prove something without science, your answer is...Christianity.


What, you expected something different? Plus my answer will be different from someone who believes a different religion.

It doesn't change the fact that rejecting non-scientific truth as inherently inferior to science is bad logic.

P.S. Billions have believed the earth is flat, that doesn't mean it is or was. You're just appealing to majority with that fallacious logic.


The earth being flat is a matter of science. God's existence is not. It's not a difficult concept, understanding that the two are completely separate issues.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#193Polish_CrusaderPosted 5/9/2013 3:07:17 PM
Keep in mind-

Science by definition is man's explanation of the universe around us. Using science to disprove something that man does not control or create is completely useless. There is nothing you can say with "science" in it that disproves the God of the bible.
#194Julian_CaesarPosted 5/9/2013 3:15:37 PM
From: JonWood007 | #189
I'm just gonna start this post by saying that you need to stop adding the word "scientific" into our sentences. I get the impression you're not debating this honestly and you're more interested in mischaracterizing and strawmanning the crap out of our posts. You're LITERALLY putting words in our mouth when you do this, so knock it the heck off.


No, I'm not. I'm replacing the words that you are leaving out of your statements. The problem is that you are using broad, sweeping terms like "truth" and using them to apply to "all truth that can possibly exist," when in reality your claims can only apply to scientifically-derived truth. In your worldview those are one and the same thing, so it's not a malicious thing on your part...you just do it by default because that is how you view the world.

Unfortunately, this entire debate is about the nature of truth itself. So you can't just assume that your brand of truth is the right one; that's called "bad logic."

if you have another way of knowing that can be trusted, tell me. Until then, stop acting like you know something we don't, since we silly atheists are too one dimensional to get it or some crap.


It's not about you being atheist, dude. It's about your persistent unwillingness to accept a logically valid argument, simply because it disagrees with your personal worldview.

....and? "I know everything and no one can be right unless they agree with me" -FSM. See? I can play this game too.


That's not the same game, because you don't actually believe FSM exists. Here's the game that's actually being played:

"I know everything by science and no can be right unless they agree with science"--JonWood

Now you're perfectly right in that there's just as much scientific evidence for FSM's existence as there is for God. The difference is that FSM was specifically invented as a false deity. You can't prove the same about God, so it's not an applicable analogy. You can say "Christianity and FSM have the same level of scientific truth" and I would agree 100%.

Argumentum ad populum.


Fair enough. Let me put it differently:

Leprechauns were accepted to be a folk invention, even by people who told stories about them. In order to say that leprechauns and God are on the same footing (not scientific footing, "literary" footing so to speak), you'd have to prove that God was invented by everyone who's told stories about Him.

Good luck with that.

Not really. I was once open minded to the idea. Until it realized it didn't work in my case. So now, I define your method as insanity.

" Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same ****ing thing... over and over again expecting... **** to change... That. Is. Crazy." --Vaas Montenegro, Far Cry 3


Well I didn't expect you to so candidly admit your fundamentalism, but there it is.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#195Julian_CaesarPosted 5/9/2013 3:33:53 PM
From: JonWood007 | #190
Except we're looking at truth claims here.


Right. As in, applying the right method to the right kind of truth.

The thing about personal testimony is it's not reliable. my own experiences speak to the opposite. Some people say they see big foot, some people say they were abducted by aliens. Personal testimony may or may not be true, but I have no reason to believe it is. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate a claim. And it's not an intellectual failing on my part to be skeptical. If YOU can't demonstrate your claim in a convincing way, that's on YOU. You can't expect people to just believe you. That's being gullible.


You're getting confused. My argument that your worldview contains inherent assumptions about truth is not a "claim based on personal testimony." It's a fact of logic, one which you cannot escape no matter how many times you try to shift the discussion to one about my personal beliefs.

If I state my personal beliefs, it's not to bolster my argument. It's because you asked.

So you're starting out assuming God....when I'm asking how you know God exists. Circular logic much? It's much better to start out not assuming something and building your way up to it. Sorry, your method fails. Once again, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate something.


There's enough wishful thinking and blissful ignorance in this paragraph to sustain the most ardent religious nut. Do you even realize how fundamentalist you sound? Appealing to "burden of scientific proof" even though I've demonstrated over and over again that burden of scientific proof can only apply to scientific truths? And thus your demands for such proof represent a continued a priori assumption that only those truths can possibly exist?

As I said, I'll accept a philosophical argument given it's sound. It can't contain logical fallacies, its assumptions should all be shown to be correct in one way or another. You can't just assume God exists and then come to the conclusion God exists, which seems to be what you're doing.


Actually, I can do that all I want. The same way you just assume only scientific truths can exist and then come to conclusion that God doesn't exist, which is exactly what you're doing.

The difference is that I'm perfectly fine with doing that. You aren't, for whatever reason seems good to you.

And for the last time, this discussion isn't about my beliefs, even though you keep trying to force it in that direction because you don't like the actual discussion itself. Whether I believe in God is completely irrelevant to the FACT that your assertion "only scientific truths can possibly exist" is based on a priori assumptions.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#196Moorish_IdolPosted 5/9/2013 3:50:37 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
Appealing to "burden of scientific proof" even though I've demonstrated over and over again that burden of scientific proof can only apply to scientific truths? And thus your demands for such proof represent a continued a priori assumption that only those truths can possibly exist?

I've tried to explain this for months too. The general retort is, "Science works, therefore I will use science." Which is fine -- but I have to wonder why he cares to hear our arguments at all if that's the case.
#197Julian_CaesarPosted 5/9/2013 4:06:27 PM
From: Faust_8 | #191
How does one "spiritually" discover "spiritual" things? Or, anything?


Well that depends on your brand of spirituality. As a Christian, I do it by reading Scripture and meditating on it. I imagine Muslims do the same with the Qur'an. Buddhists adhere to Siddhartha's teachings as steps to spiritual enlightenment (err, I think that's how it works anyway?). And I wish I knew enough about Hindu to say what they do, but they have a lot of gods and it confuses me.

You're not going to spiritually discover spiritual things by using scientific methods, if that's what you're wondering. Hence my point earlier about using the right tool.

I think you're operating under a different definition of "discover" or "know." Because the way I see it, spirituality can give you FAITH about something but that's very different from actually KNOWING something.


I agree, we have different definitions. My own personal experiences have imparted to me a certain "knowledge" that God exists, which is sufficient evidence for me. But that's very different from the "knowledge" that gravity exists, yes.

This is why I have never been able to understand where you're coming from, Julian. Because I literally can't think of a single thing that humans have ever "known" just by spirituality or philosophy. The only facts that I know of are the ones derived from observation or testing or mathematics.


If you mean "known" in the sense that we "know" gravity exists, then I see why there's been all the confusion. Spiritual truths aren't really "facts" in the sense that they are discrete bits of information that can be organized/classified.

Look at it this way: science deals in physical/observable matter. So its truths will apply to the physical universe. Agreed?

But what about spirituality? What matters does it deal with? Those of spirits (i.e. souls) and their interactions. Thus if "spiritual truths" do exist, then their application is almost strictly on a relationship level, whether with another person or with God (since only other "spirits" will be subject to spiritual truths). And since each person's "spirit" is different from everyone else's, it follows that you can't apply "spiritual rules" to spiritual relationships in the same way that we apply "physics" to physical particles/masses.

Without rules, you can't really classify or "know" those truths the way we can classify and "know" the different kinds of physical particles and forces. Thus I agree that spirituality/philosophy has not given us any "facts," while I would disagree that they cannot provide us with "truth."

You allude to spiritually discovering things but never cite examples or how it works or...anything, besides that it vaguely exists. And I'm beginning to think it's nothing but having faith to you, which you should understand is logically and by definition different than knowledge.


Faith is required to have a relationship with God, yes. And anything I spiritually discover would be about God, or my relationship to another person, etc. If you want examples I can give them, but they wouldn't be very meaningful to you aside from curiosity.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#198kozlo100Posted 5/9/2013 4:55:58 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: Faust_8 | #191
This is why I have never been able to understand where you're coming from, Julian. Because I literally can't think of a single thing that humans have ever "known" just by spirituality or philosophy. The only facts that I know of are the ones derived from observation or testing or mathematics.


If you mean "known" in the sense that we "know" gravity exists, then I see why there's been all the confusion. Spiritual truths aren't really "facts" in the sense that they are discrete bits of information that can be organized/classified.

Look at it this way: science deals in physical/observable matter. So its truths will apply to the physical universe. Agreed?


I kind of want to talk about mathematics in response to this bit of the conversation. Mathematical truths certainly aren't spiritual, but nor are they necessarily empirical, at least not all of them. I think there's a solid case for calling mathematical facts philosophical knowledge.

After all, we can't empirically test that there are an infinite number of points on a line, yet via logic and reasoning we arrive at that conclusion, and I think we're pretty comfortable calling that knowledge.

Then you can get into more esoteric things like incompleteness theorem, which has almost no connection at all to anything physical, cannot be verified nor falsified via a physical experiment or observation, and yet is still pretty universally considered to be knowledge.

I don't think any of that really says anything regarding spiritual knowledge, but I do feel it shows that there are paths to knowledge that don't involve the hypothesize-test-observe methodology of science and empiricism.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#199JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/9/2013 5:02:10 PM

No, I'm not. I'm replacing the words that you are leaving out of your statements. The problem is that you are using broad, sweeping terms like "truth" and using them to apply to "all truth that can possibly exist," when in reality your claims can only apply to scientifically-derived truth. In your worldview those are one and the same thing, so it's not a malicious thing on your part...you just do it by default because that is how you view the world.

Unfortunately, this entire debate is about the nature of truth itself. So you can't just assume that your brand of truth is the right one; that's called "bad logic."


Once again, you can either show us your method or stop talking.

It's not about you being atheist, dude. It's about your persistent unwillingness to accept a logically valid argument, simply because it disagrees with your personal worldview.


Just because something is logically valid doesn't make it true. Not to mention most of the stuff you've proposed isn't logically valid.

There's enough wishful thinking and blissful ignorance in this paragraph to sustain the most ardent religious nut. Do you even realize how fundamentalist you sound? Appealing to "burden of scientific proof" even though I've demonstrated over and over again that burden of scientific proof can only apply to scientific truths? And thus your demands for such proof represent a continued a priori assumption that only those truths can possibly exist?


I sound perfectly reasonable, you on the other hand are evading the question and attacking my methods without actually doing diddly squat to support your point of view.


That's not the same game, because you don't actually believe FSM exists. Here's the game that's actually being played:

"I know everything by science and no can be right unless they agree with science"--JonWood

Now you're perfectly right in that there's just as much scientific evidence for FSM's existence as there is for God. The difference is that FSM was specifically invented as a false deity. You can't prove the same about God, so it's not an applicable analogy. You can say "Christianity and FSM have the same level of scientific truth" and I would agree 100%.


Congratulations of totally missing the point I was trying to make.


Fair enough. Let me put it differently:

Leprechauns were accepted to be a folk invention, even by people who told stories about them. In order to say that leprechauns and God are on the same footing (not scientific footing, "literary" footing so to speak), you'd have to prove that God was invented by everyone who's told stories about Him.

Good luck with that.


You're not getting it. I don't have to prove crap. You do. Let's stick with that, shall we?

Right. As in, applying the right method to the right kind of truth.

And you haven't shown why your method is reliable. At all.

You're getting confused. My argument that your worldview contains inherent assumptions about truth is not a "claim based on personal testimony." It's a fact of logic, one which you cannot escape no matter how many times you try to shift the discussion to one about my personal beliefs.

If I state my personal beliefs, it's not to bolster my argument. It's because you asked.


Once again, I'm not seeing you defend your point of view here.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#200JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/9/2013 5:04:46 PM

There's enough wishful thinking and blissful ignorance in this paragraph to sustain the most ardent religious nut. Do you even realize how fundamentalist you sound? Appealing to "burden of scientific proof" even though I've demonstrated over and over again that burden of scientific proof can only apply to scientific truths? And thus your demands for such proof represent a continued a priori assumption that only those truths can possibly exist?


Do you even realize how evasive you sound? I hate to get rude here, but put up or shut up.

Actually, I can do that all I want. The same way you just assume only scientific truths can exist and then come to conclusion that God doesn't exist, which is exactly what you're doing.

The difference is that I'm perfectly fine with doing that. You aren't, for whatever reason seems good to you.

And for the last time, this discussion isn't about my beliefs, even though you keep trying to force it in that direction because you don't like the actual discussion itself. Whether I believe in God is completely irrelevant to the FACT that your assertion "only scientific truths can possibly exist" is based on a priori assumptions.


I never assumed only scientific truths exist. I even conceded to moorish that philosophy can be useful if the arguments are well supported. However, I am skeptical of other methods, which you haven't really demonstrated to be true.

Look, you're not gonna convince me of something unless you demonstrate it. So I have assumptions in my worldview, so what? It doesn't make your worldview any more true. Once again, stop acting like I'm too one dimensional to get it and how you're so open minded because you accept stuff for what appears to be no good reason. If you have had anecdotal experience, that may work for you, but it's not gonna do anything for me. Because I didn't experience it.

But seriously, if you have something to demonstrate to me as far as this discussion goes, by all means, but evading the question, criticizing my methods without offering a valid alternative, etc. is not gonna do anything.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768