A Pragmatist's Guide to God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2017, 08:07 PM
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 07:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-04-2017 07:30 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  I was arrogant. I was rude, cynical, and bitter. I thought I had an ax to grind with religion because of how traditional religion defies decent morals. I saw the worst in religion and gave the religious a piece of my mind. I'm not being arrogant by saying I was arrogant. I am being truthful.

That had precisely nothing to do with her comments. Facepalm
Hello good sir,
It answers what I intended by my original post. But I will further extrapolate. As I've gotten older I've gained a since of wonder and awe about the cosmos. I'm not an atheist or theist. I'm an optimistic agnostic. I mentioned Paley's watch argument before. That is just one argument that gives evidence of a designer. As you know, there are many. However, I don't think it's conclusive. Another poster mentioned how design doesn't need a designer. How design can be functionally created and that argument holds merit also.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:28 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2017 08:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 07:01 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  You're referring to a religion. I don't assume you are a secular humanist or a liberal. Slow down there. This is just the belief in a god.

No I'm not.
You have not defined or named your generic god. Meaningless nonsense.
You have no coherent god to even speak about

Quote:Yes, there might be a functional teleology! Evolution certainly is functional. So there is evidence that order can arise functionally, but paley's watch argument rebuts.

Absolutely false. The watch is the fallacy of the false anaolgy. There is NOTHING in nature that resembles the watch.

Quote:However, that only gets us so far too. There is so much we can't explain in the universe... Why are the laws the way they are and not some other way?
That's an interesting question. I'm not saying god designed it that way. if there is a god who is to say he doesn't have to obey them too!

Exactly. Just as I said. God of the gaps. The concept of a deity answers none of the problems that remain unexplained.

Quote:Sorry sir, you're confusing the belief in god with following a religion. Natural theology calls for the belief in god be in reason. Although, even the simplest beliefs take faith... There are many ways we can slice the bread here.

Again, you have not named or defined a god, or explained how a god that "exists" is a coherent idea. I'm confusing gods with NOTHING, and YOU missed the point. The POINT is, logic cannot lead one to ultimate reality in a non-intuitive universe. Only evidence. There is no evidence for a god, and what appears to humans to (intuitively) need design is evidence of nothing.

Quote:Why do you think god is a he? Ah theodicy, the problem of evil. Surely you've seen rebuttals to this argument before. Remember, James' version of god is finite. He isn't the big three O's.
.
Your reading comprehension is very poor. I was NOT talking about theodicy. You seem to have very little experience actually discussing these subjects, other than with fundamentalists and presuppositionalists. I don't think god is a he. There are no gods, and they certainly have no genders. I was talking about JAMES.

Quote:What is the real world though? Surely you know it by way of consciousness, but what is consciousness? Surely, this is where it all begins yet we can't even explain that.

They're well on the way, but thanks for demonstrating you have NO background in Neuro-science. At All. We have learned to know the world by trial and error and SCIENCE and experience. Not by some woo bullshit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-04-2017, 08:32 PM
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 08:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is NOTHING in nature that resembles the watch.

[Image: functioningm.jpg]

Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
14-04-2017, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2017 09:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 08:32 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(14-04-2017 08:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is NOTHING in nature that resembles the watch.

[Image: functioningm.jpg]

Tongue

Allow me to clarify, Prophet Dude, ... there may be things that look like watches, but biochemistry and genetics, and the related sciences have perfectly plausible pathways that anything so far observed, could have evolved by.

Basically his whole schtick is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Btw, a god that has to obey the laws of the universe is not a god. It's subject to Reality, not it's master and creator. A god that exists does not "not exist" ... and MUST participate (in only part) in the very reality in which it is extant, and which had to always be present as long as that god had existence. That's not possible, (that it "found itself" already embedded in Reality). That also is no god, and all the important questions remain unanswered.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-04-2017, 08:44 PM
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 08:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Basically his whole schtick is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

I don't think it's all that. I think he found his Gwynnies in this other dude's philosophy and he's working on the wording of it. Of course, I could be wrong. That's a thing that happens. Big Grin

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
14-04-2017, 09:08 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2017 09:14 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 08:44 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(14-04-2017 08:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Basically his whole schtick is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

I don't think it's all that. I think he found his Gwynnies in this other dude's philosophy and he's working on the wording of it. Of course, I could be wrong. That's a thing that happens. Big Grin

Now he's just being fucking sappy though. I hate sappy.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
14-04-2017, 09:12 PM
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
Well Stephen, it would seem you are still a little green behind the ears. It's probably just a little fungus. Don't worry, a healthy dose of critical thinking will get you back on track.

Take everything you've said and replace the word "god" with "leprechaun".

Do you now have a belief in leprechauns ?

Think about it very clearly.
Keep the big boy pants on and mull it over.

So far, everything you've said has been countered and corrected for logic, as well as fundamental mistakes when presenting your fallacious ideas.

Any argument for the existence of a god also applies equally to any imaginary figment.
And that Sir also implies that all gods are imaginary.

Unless of course you have some evidence of this gods existence.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
14-04-2017, 09:38 PM
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(14-04-2017 06:29 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  ...
I have great reverence for science, but It has built in limitations and will forever bear the mark of its maker.

Which can be said for James's god, no?

Consider

(14-04-2017 07:01 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  ...
Although, even the simplest beliefs take faith...

The simplest beliefs take apathy. More often than not, they take affinity.

Faith as “… the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” … is intellectual cowardice.

(14-04-2017 06:29 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  ...
What is the real world though? Surely you know it by way of consciousness, but what is consciousness? Surely, this is where it all begins yet we can't even explain that.

Speak for yourself.

Think of it like a self-monitoring system's self-monitoring system.

We think in chemical Gifs. Here's a haiku to prove it:
Big Grin
Gone from conscious thought
introspective loop-back trips
fragile memory

(14-04-2017 07:23 PM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote:  ...
Science is great at describing the extrinsic properties of the world that it can view objectively, but it can't explain intrinsic properties that can only be experienced subjectively. This is the explanatory gap. If we take the brain, expand it to the size of the building, and step in, we will see mostly fat protein and water made of neurons, which mostly translates to axons, dendrites, and the synaptic firing between the dendrites. Nowhere in there do we see an idea, motive, desire, or sensation or feeling. These are intrinsic properties, and science has to do some soul searching, like Penrose believes, if science is going to try and tackle consciousness, for certainly part of reality is consciousness among the dread abysses and exploding stars.

Step inside a computer ... show me the App.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
14-04-2017, 09:59 PM
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
(13-04-2017 08:46 PM)JesseB Wrote:  Pragmatic

"dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations." (Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic)

Stands to reason that a pragmatist would say "that shit is of no practical value to me, I'm gonna worry about how to make money, feed my family, and do the things I need to do"
So where did all this other shit come from?

A pragmatic person would have no need or reason to believe in any god.

And we just discovered so many pragmatic people with one post and all their likes lol

(It's ok I'm often overly pragmatic too lol)

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2017, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2017 02:08 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: A Pragmatist's Guide to God
Yes, there are probably lots of things going on that it's impossible for us to detect. Maybe we'll eventually detect then, maybe not. This doesn't mean making things up about them based on our emotions or desires is helpful.

It's not helpful towards learning the truth, anyway. If you're the kind of person who is comforted by delusion, then sure, it helps. This is hardly unique to God, it's just about woo in general. So this is about how much you're interested in staying within reality.

Either way, belief is not a simple conscious choice. To delude yourself takes work and time, and I'd argue that the drawbacks may well outweigh the comfort factor. Personally I'm not interested in doing such a thing.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: