NationStates Jolt Archive

Religion is notorious for its false claims to objective truth. Of course, counter-religiosity often makes exactly the same mistake, claiming that because it can never be objective, it must be wrong. This newsflash just in: Nothing you can say about God can ever be held to any degree of objective accuracy. In fact, nothing you can see, hear, think, learn or understand about God can be done so with any degree of objective accuracy.

You do not see the world as it is; everything you see in it passes through your own subjective personal and cultural lenses and thus is expressed in terms of who you are. The God you know, whether you adopt a position of Belief or Disbelief, and whether or not it resembles anything that actually is out there, is something that is entirely constructed within your mind in response to the things that you persuade yourself that you have seen.

And in a world of such unending complexity as this one, you can be fairly confident that you are going to be wrong at least somewhere. If the thing called God exists, whatever that God is, it will almost certainly not be constrained by what you think about it, or by what your books say about it, or by what any amount of your reading or philosophising or preaching will attempt to derive about it, because it is not you, and unless you are God, your ideas about it, however collectively we may attempt to construct them, are always going to fall short of the mark.

So enough of the arguments in trying to win people over to our way of looking at God. God, whatever it is, is not subject to what you or I think about it, and that in which we "believe" or "disbelieve" is always going to lie beyond our grasp. We Are Wrong. That is as much as can be publicly said and as much as can ever be ascertained about the objective nature of the divine.

I just wonder why people think this question is even remotely zero-sum...

You know, Eris probably doesn't like you.

I just wonder why people think this question is even remotely zero-sum...
Izzactly. You often hear that religion or irreligion is about "backing a particular side". Which's clearly a load of horse. The chances of any one being correct are infinitely smaller than even all of them being right (for a given definition of right), never mind the near-certainty of them all being wrong.

Trilby63;13185973']You know, Eris probably doesn't like you.
Who? I've been out of the NSG loop for a while, so you'll have to forgive m3h n00bness. :confused:

Trilby63;13185973']You know, Eris probably doesn't like you.

Eris doesn't really like anyone, at least not at this time of the month.

God came to me in a dream and told me that he is objectively true, and looks just how I pictured him. I then thanked him for settling that question.

Who? I’ve been out of the NSG loop for a while, so you’ll have to forgive m3h n00bness. :confused:
Eris, our Lady Discordia.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)#Eris_in_Discordianism).

Eris doesn't really like anyone, at least not at this time of the month.

She doesn't like me any time of the month..:(

God came to me in a dream and told me that he is objectively true, and looks just how I pictured him. I then thanked him for settling that question.
Pics or it didn't happen.

Trilby63;13186036']She doesn't like me any time of the month..:(

Well stop being a cabbage.

Well stop being a cabbage.

And have a bunless, vegan hot dog.

Well stop being a cabbage.

Cabbage or not, I don't see no reason I can't ordain myself "The Keeper of Her Holy Orbs"!

Trilby63;13186056']Cabbage or not, I don't see no reason I can't ordain myself "The Keeper of Her Holy Orbs"!

You can if you want, but don't expect her to get her tits out just because you do.

Eris, our Lady Discordia.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)#Eris_in_Discordianism).
Ta for the info. Still, chaos thrives in acknowledged ignorance, since institutions yield to individual idealism (which is much more prone to spontaneity) rather than collective agreement. Discordianism has nothing to fear from everybody being wrong.

*snip rant*

You're one of those that thinks we can't ever know anything, aren't you?

You can if you want, but don't expect her to get her tits out just because you do.


:(





:D

:cool:
Kamsaki-Myu, you say that: "You do not see the world as it is; everything you see in it passes through your own subjective personal and cultural lenses and thus is expressed in terms of who you are." This is something that Kant talks about.... This can be problematic because some would argue that if you can not know the "real" world, why bother trying to know it? Why not just invent one's own bubble of reality and impose it onto others through force and through manipulation? Machiavelli and Hobbes among others seem to promote this way of thinking.

Perhaps the "real" world can be discovered through contemplation as Plato would prescribe, perhaps the "real" world can be measured as Ayer believes where anything sensed is the only thing that can be considered "real". Perhaps sincere efforts may give you answers of the "real" as many religions attempt to follow a set of ethical guidelines and practices.... or perhaps the "real" can actually personify itself and attempt to communicate with us as the Christian philosophy alludes to....

Universal truths or subjective interpretations of reality? That is the real question.... and Kant tries to have it both ways, universal truths that can only be interpreted subjectively.... fascinating read despite the problems expressed here.... :rolleyes:

:cool:
Kamsaki-Myu, you say that: "You do not see the world as it is; everything you see in it passes through your own subjective personal and cultural lenses and thus is expressed in terms of who you are." This is something that Kant talks about.... This can be problematic because some would argue that if you can not know the "real" world, why bother trying to know it? Why not just invent one's own bubble of reality and impose it onto others through force and through manipulation? Machiavelli and Hobbes among others seem to promote this way of thinking.

Perhaps the "real" world can be discovered through contemplation as Plato would prescribe, perhaps the "real" world can be measured as Ayer believes where anything sensed is the only thing that can be considered "real". Perhaps sincere efforts may give you answers of the "real" as many religions attempt to follow a set of ethical guidelines and practices.... or perhaps the "real" can actually personify itself and attempt to communicate with us as the Christian philosophy alludes to....

Universal truths or subjective interpretations of reality? That is the real question.... and Kant tries to have it both ways, universal truths that can only be interpreted subjectively.... fascinating read despite the problems expressed here.... :rolleyes:

Kinda like the Eristic and Aneristic Illusions?

You're one of those that thinks we can't ever know anything, aren't you?
That's not quite true. I am convinced that that which can be expressed purely in subjective terms without previous assumption is also acknowledgably objective. For instance, it is true that there is currently (from what I shall call "My perspective") an image being perceived of which I interpret from previous definitions to be a computer screen. This perception is irrefutable. I am also convinced, therefore, that perception is an active process; ie, that it's not just pure chaos, and that either I'm making it all up or being fed it from some external source (or, more likely, somewhere on the scale between the two).

It is also true that although I can say very little about the nature of that which is being perceived, through use of a subconscious protocol for classification of perceived entities, I can identify and name individual objects and use this knowledge to interact with the perceived entity. What's more, by adopting a particular classification protocol, I can interact with some other entities (that I call people) and receive conceptual feedback through discourse, which in turn opens up new methods of interaction and evaluation.

None of this is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether I can make any observations to accurately describe that which is beyond immediate perception. For instance, it is true that I remember that I had a bacon sandwich for breakfast, but is it true that my memory maps to the reality of some external structure of this morning? It is true that I remember the sun rising every morning in the past, but does that mean it will rise again tomorrow? It is true that I see a screen before me, but does that mean that there actually is some notion of a physical computer that the physical me is interacting with?

Well, point is, the only method we have for testing the world is the feedback that we get from it, and as such, we still haven't escaped from the realm of subjectivity beyond the "whatever this I is is capable of dialogue with whatever this Other is". But this is potentially a very powerful result, since it suggests a sort of knowledge beyond and yet inclusive of the subjectivities of both myself and the world. So what I do is I acknowledge Objectivity as being equivilent to the union of Subjectivities and the discourse between them, which precludes my ever knowing of the whole thing, but permits me to be able to gain and create knowledge by engaging in discourse and dialogue with the world around me.

Or so I think, anyway.

-completely unethical and unjustified snippage-
Sorry about the delay; was responding to Kyronea. I'll assume you've read that reply. Anyway, yes, the dialogue process is always subject to our own personal machinations, and as a result, the way we relate to the world will always be imperfect. There is little we can do if someone decides that they do not wish to listen to anyone outside their bubble, and if anything this is all the more verification for a discourse-model of truth. Think Hegelian Dialetics meets Russell's Analytical Method and that's basically what I think is going on.

Can new knowledge be gained? Yes, but never fully, and in most cases not verifiably. The point I made sure to say was that you never "see" the world as it is. The perceiving is always true; the actual perception, however, is a fragment of dialogue, and carries with it a relatively small amount of raw, verifiable data. It takes us to interpret this in terms of our shared language and model of the world to derive information from the perception itself, and even this will always be based on previous such information.

In any case, Universal Truth will always be beyond our grasp. It is hopeless to attempt to reach at it for what it is. But nonetheless, the gap between us and it is merely one of relating to the world, and not only is that worth doing in itself, but if we can refine our relating process to the point of shared experience, we can get pretty damned close.

Trilby63;13186256']Kinda like the Eristic and Aneristic Illusions?

:)
sorry, not familiar with those.... but I will look into it (pun intended)... any suggestions as to where to start?

To Kamsaki-Myu, interesting viewpoint... it still sounds very Kantian though (nothing wrong with that).... I will have to be more thorough in my readings of Kant and his critiques before I can respond adequately to your view. :)

I have bad memories of epistemology and ontology from political science classes, but to get to the crux of the issue:

The OP claims God's attributes are impossible to know and our notions of God are entirely subjective. True. But the likelihood of God's existence (somewhere around 0%) is an objective fact, independent of individual interpretation.

Pics or it didn't happen.

http://drunkencomicsrage.threaddrift.com/wp-content/uploads/buddy%20christ.jpg

:)

:)
sorry, not familiar with those.... but I will look into it (pun intended)... any suggestions as to where to start?



http://www.principiadiscordia.com/

Yes.

The OP claims God's attributes are impossible to know and our notions of God are entirely subjective. True. But the likelihood of God's existence (somewhere around 0%) is an objective fact, independent of individual interpretation.How do you arrive at such a probability? What data is it based on? And for that matter, what concept of god?

The OP claims God's attributes are impossible to know and our notions of God are entirely subjective. True. But the likelihood of God's existence (somewhere around 0%) is an objective fact, independent of individual interpretation.
"Likelihood" is never objective. Probability is about degrees of certainty and is therefore tied intrinsically to subjective interpretation.

If you're saying that the state of God's existence as being a truth value is objectively discerned, whether ot not it is discernable (which may be what you mean when you say "likelihood"), then again that may be so, but given that Any God you describe is going to be a conceptual construct, it seems axiomatic that whatever we say about it is going to relate solely to the form of our own ideas. The act of pointing to instances of its existence (or lack thereof) is going to be one of subjective interpretation.

In other words, "God Existing" depends on what we mean by God, and given that this meaning will never be 100% accurate (because whatever God is, it's not Me, and I can never 100% know that which is not myself), it will not only never be possible to get an answer, but the supposed arrival at an answer is a good sign of a misguided agenda.

http://drunkencomicsrage.threaddrift.com/wp-content/uploads/buddy%20christ.jpg

:)
As usual, LG is the exception to the rule and is objectively awesome. But then, he's the exception to every rule. Even that one.

Wow, you're so right.

I'll completely stop my dedication to God. You sure convinced me. Yeah, it's all in my head! D'oh, how could I have been so stupid?

Wow, you're so right.

I'll completely stop my dedication to God. You sure convinced me. Yeah, it's all in my head! D'oh, how could I have been so stupid?
Maybe it's not all in your head. Maybe you're partly right. But you're certainly not completely right, and you're certainly never verifiably right, so a little humility would (probably) do everyone a world of good.

Is this for real?

We can't know anything, therefore god?

Religion is notorious for its false claims to objective truth. Of course, counter-religiosity often makes exactly the same mistake, claiming that because it can never be objective, it must be wrong. This newsflash just in: Nothing you can say about God can ever be held to any degree of objective accuracy. In fact, nothing you can see, hear, think, learn or understand about God can be done so with any degree of objective accuracy.

You do not see the world as it is; everything you see in it passes through your own subjective personal and cultural lenses and thus is expressed in terms of who you are. The God you know, whether you adopt a position of Belief or Disbelief, and whether or not it resembles anything that actually is out there, is something that is entirely constructed within your mind in response to the things that you persuade yourself that you have seen.

And in a world of such unending complexity as this one, you can be fairly confident that you are going to be wrong at least somewhere. If the thing called God exists, whatever that God is, it will almost certainly not be constrained by what you think about it, or by what your books say about it, or by what any amount of your reading or philosophising or preaching will attempt to derive about it, because it is not you, and unless you are God, your ideas about it, however collectively we may attempt to construct them, are always going to fall short of the mark.

So enough of the arguments in trying to win people over to our way of looking at God. God, whatever it is, is not subject to what you or I think about it, and that in which we "believe" or "disbelieve" is always going to lie beyond our grasp. We Are Wrong. That is as much as can be publicly said and as much as can ever be ascertained about the objective nature of the divine.

Yay!
Now can you pose this more as questions, for debate reasons? :p

http://drunkencomicsrage.threaddrift.com/wp-content/uploads/buddy%20christ.jpg

:)

http://www.freewebs.com/devin_futurama/00%20zoidberg%20jesus.jpg
:)

I don't know anything for definite, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't trust myself to have a good chance of being right.

For example, I don't know for definite that my furniture will not transform into a monster while I sleep and eat me, but I will trust my reasoning, which tells me it will not happen.

I don't know anything for definite, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't trust myself to have a good chance of being right.

For example, I don't know for definite that my furniture will not transform into a monster while I sleep and eat me, but I will trust my reasoning, which tells me it will not happen.
Best reasoning works with identifying things for what they are, not what we fear, wish or hope them to be.

Best reasoning works with identifying things for what they are, not what we fear, wish or hope them to be.

Yes, I know. Why are you stating the obvious?

Yes, I know. Why are you stating the obvious?

It's in the name. :)
Besides, i was agreeing with you.

It's in the name. :)
?

Besides, i was agreeing with you.
Ah, that threw me.

http://www.freewebs.com/devin_futurama/00%20zoidberg%20jesus.jpg
:)

http://boingboing.net/images/fsmdragoncon.jpg

:)

?
Uhm ... ask WYTYG. :p
Otherwise ... Brief + Obvious.

Ah, that threw me.
For a C-note? :confused:

Uhm ... ask WYTYG. :p
Otherwise ... Brief + Obvious.

For a C-note? :confused:

Um... I guess you're asking where the expression comes from; I don't actually know. I may even be using it incorrectly. What I mean is that it was the cause of my confusion. I don't know what you mean about a "C-note".

http://boingboing.net/images/fsmdragoncon.jpg

:)

You Win!
I think it would take me too long to attempt to compete with that one. :D

Um... I guess you're asking where the expression comes from; I don't actually know. I may even be using it incorrectly. What I mean is that it was the cause of my confusion.Don't worry about it. Just funnin' with ya. :)
I don't know what you mean about a "C-note".As in, "threw ya for a C-note". *nods*

You're one of those that thinks we can't ever know anything, aren't you?

It could be much worse, I know someone who doesn't believe anything exists. I have debated his philosophy with him many times, but now I have pretty much given up. It is hard to get people to change their mind when they don't even believe you exist.

It is hard to get people to change their mind when they don't even believe you exist.
Just remind them that you are a part of their own self, in the same persuasion of advocacy that Satan was. :)

Just remind them that you are a part of their own self, in the same persuasion of advocacy that Satan was. :)

That might work, except he doesn't think he exists either.
No matter how much I quote Descartes...

That might work, except he doesn't think he exists either.
No matter how much I quote Descartes...

Ooh - I * :fluffle: * people like that.
The easiest way to get them to start doubting it is by whapping them in the gonads with a grapefruit. Surely as a surprise, so they don't start rationalizing it in the usual fashion.
Other forms of pain/pleasure work really well, too - some people, however, really aren't worth it.
They're good tests of what kind of surprises and unpredictability you can concoct, though. And they're fun at parties, under the right circumstances.

*reminisces about Marge*

Ooh - I * :fluffle: * people like that.
The easiest way to get them to start doubting it is by whapping them in the gonads with a grapefruit. Surely as a surprise, so they don't start rationalizing it in the usual fashion.
Other forms of pain/pleasure work really well, too - some people, however, really aren't worth it.
They're good tests of what kind of surprises and unpredictability you can concoct, though. And they're fun at parties, under the right circumstances.

*reminisces about Marge*

Bwahaha...:p

*stocks up on fruits*