James-(CA) | Utility Of Using Philosophy As God Proof | Talk Heathen 06.22

[@fpcoleman57]

I love the fact that many Canadians are so polite!

[@juanjoseescanellas3798]

Exxtian and Jmike you were fantastic dealing with this question.

[@Reno_Slim]

You can make a philosophical argument for the utility of a god belief but not for a god existing in reality. That would require evidence.

[@notnull5878]

I would argue that philosophically speaking, you don't need evidence for anything you say

[@juanjoseescanellas3798]

@@John-uk8eo I agree that the sentence it's not clear and utility either. But also I find this interesting, I will be candid, and I know I can be wrong. Suppose I think that true or false in logic are like white or black in any board game, i.e. who move first it's just an agreement of how to begin with. Math it's a logical game too, and it's just like that, for example you have multiple geometries, etc. Evidence it's out of the rules, as far as the arguments are consistent, you can play different games, all "true" models of some game. But if we accept that to take a decision in Nature anyone should require the best evidence available as a basis, it's a convention, not an argument. We can agree or not, like maybe we don't agree on playing football, but yes on basketball. For me to live in Nature it's just to take risks, and logic and math are interesting games. Just useful tools sometimes, or fun games to play. I take account of my experience and notes I have as guidelines. I don't care about absolute trues. I don't want to convince anyone that my games are better than the other. All games are fun. I only will contest agsinst violence and cheating, because they're neccesary only for those who feel they could never win a game. That's enough for me, I'm simple minded.

[@rageofheaven]

@@John-uk8eo "The existence of objective moral values show that God exists in that what we understand to be good reflects God's character and nature. " How can you understand something to be good when it's objective?

[@G_Demolished]

@@John-uk8eo What is your evidence that morals can be objective?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@notnull5878 Τhat is wrong. Philosophy goal is to use questions, syllogisms and theories in an effort to arrive to Wise Conclusions( Love of Wisdom). In order for a Conclusion to be Wise, it needs to be supported by Knowledge. This means that your arguments need to be sound, thus to be founded on objectively verified facts and evidence.

[@adriangeh6414]

I can also come up with a 'philosophical argument' or any other such mumbo jumbo, as proof that middle earth and planet earth is converging and that the world of men must come together to defeat sauron once again.

[@StrGzr101]

Religion is philosophy. Nothing more than philosophy, really.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

•Reality Warping: As the administrator of the material realm, Yaldabaoth has full control over both the physical and cognitive universes. Upon encroaching upon reality and fusing the cognitive universe with the physical universe, his control spreads and allows him to directly change the real world as he sees fit. •Existence Erasure: After fusing reality with the cognitive universe, by erasing an object or person's existence within the Collective Unconscious, that object or person's real counterpart would cease to exist in reality as well.

[@brucewilliams4152]

Philosophy does not prove God, you require evidence for that

[@iceman3451]

In reality, what we need to be doing, is opening our minds before our mouths. That's how you can have a sense of knowledgeable insight on how to depict reality from non reality, fact from fiction, so on and so forth.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Opening your mind alone wont be any real help. You will need to study the science and Basic Logic. Then use your mouth to ask the right questions and after having the epistemic foundation then its time to open your mind and be critical.

[@iceman3451]

And besides, if you DONT open your mind first and foremost, then it won't be helpful will it!?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@iceman3451 Opening your mind without having the ability to filter ideas is catastrophic.

[@iceman3451]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 duh. Thus the reason open your mind before your mouth, do you really not actually understand what the quote means!?

[@iceman3451]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 or let alone the basic concept of what it is actually all pertaining to?

[@ready1fire1aim1]

•Demiurge Physiology: Yaldabaoth is a demiurge, an artisan-like being responsible for the fashioning, shaping, and maintenance of the physical universe, or at least some portion of it. It may clear things to know that in Greek dēmiourgos means literally "public worker", and was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually it came to mean "producer" and eventually "creator" or "maker". •Illusory Omnipotence: Yaldabaoth can pretend to have powers similar to a supreme deity. How this can work in action is creating illusions/hallucinations or acts of trickery, possess abilities that can make it appear cosmic or godlike to prove the lie. This power is below logic so anyone who can detect the truth/logic behind them can see their true form. •Anti-God: Yaldabaoth exists as the Shadow of God, personifying the darkness of the God being, it is the empty shell that is left in the absence of His presence. Yaldabaoth is a dark reflection of creation and that which exists above it, being below all, just as The One Above All exists above all. •Sealing: Yaldabaoth was able to seal away gods and take over their realms. He was also able to seal away people's extra-sensory perception, which prevented them from being able to see him. •BFR: Yaldabaoth has battlefield removal on a dimensional level, being able to relocate the entire realms, which is a separate dimension located between mind and reality, and bring it to his prison. •Conceptual Manipulation: Yaldabaoth holds power over the concepts of the Deadly Sins through manipulating mankind's perceptions of such concepts.

[@chuckybang]

There are plenty of resources to reach out to for help.

[@HybridGib]

I wonder if maybe the reason religious apologetics exists as a practice is because even theists who are of decent intelligence can probably understand that the irreligious aren't skeptical for the same reasons the religious believe.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Atheism is the direct product of Skepticism on a claim that isn't accepted on face value.

[@HybridGib]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Yeah, that's why the trend is typically that theists believe without evidence while atheists aren't convinced due to the lack of such evidence; though, there are some theists who are convinced by some form of evidence, even if it may be facile.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@HybridGib Theists are usually convinced by really bad evidence. Low standards of evidence is what allow con artists to thrive in our societies.

[@HybridGib]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Unfortunately, yeah

[@eklektikTubb]

Hey, people, how would you respond to a gabby person who just keeps talking, using his difficult vague language, throwing lots of irational nonsense at you, you see that he is totally lost in his thoeries... and when you try to briefly sumarize what he said, he just says "dont paraphrase me, that is a fallacy"? I dont see any solution to this problem, since this person is using paraphrases himself, he is doing it quite often and he is obviosly not willing to admit it. 😕

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

lol...What's up with this "hurt puppy" behavior? -" using his difficult vague language" -Seriously. .....The rules of Basic Logic are "difficult and vague Language" for you? Lame dude...really lame.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

be honest with yourself. You don't understand logic right? You don't understand why faith based beliefs are irrational right....and your only defense is to attack logic.

[@eklektikTubb]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Defence against what? Against this verbal war that you created? Against your dishonest trash talk and gaslighting? (Yes, sure... i dont understand it because i am not able to. Whatever.)

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@eklektikTubb -"Against this verbal war that you created? " -Critique of irrational thinking is NOT a war mate. Use concepts properly. IF you are emotionally weak then you shouldn't post your beliefs in public. I would guess you live under a democratic regime and in democracy freedom of speech is foundational. -"Against your dishonest trash talk and gaslighting?" -How can I be dishonest when the only thing I pointed out in your argument are objective flaws and fallacies in your reasoning????

[@eklektikTubb]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Yep, here we go again. Your typical critique mode: "Ha ha ha, look at what you wrote, you are wrong about the first part, wrong about the second part, blah blah blah, wrong about the fourth part, blah blah blah, wrong about the sixth part, wrong abot the last part, you dont understand it, you are not even able to, you never will be, please notice that i am not calling you stupid because i dont do those thing, what i actually do is something totally different, called reasoning, based on Logic and Reason which you fight against." The way YOU are doing it IS a verbal war... and it is a very BORING and PREDICTABLE war. You are just willing to be hostile, manipulative and dishonest, as usually. (BTW, your question contains a hidden claim that you pointed out my real flaws, my OBJECTIVE flaws, and that is simply not true.)

[@tristancelayeta6890]

Ha, ha, pretending that "God" was not invented by humans and that discussing characteristics of a fictional entity is other than Dada is hilarious. Evasion of scientific rigor leads to some pretty weird mental gyrations.

[@bulukhuman7498]

I sometimes find what JMike's speaking very hard to understand( I mean the point ). He makes me feel so stupid. Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker or does it happens to you guys too?

[@solly119119]

There are times I agree with you, and English is my first language. It's not I think JMike is doing something wrong, but there are times when he can get a bit too "high brow" in his comments, in my opinion. I'm not suggesting he should dumb it down necessarily, but often I compare how he relates with his words to someone else who I'd day is his intellectual and knowledge equal, which is Matt Dillahunty. For me, Matt does a better job at explaining concepts in ways that makes it easier for people to understand. Again, in my opinion. That being said, we as the audience can also research something JMike references that we might not fully get.

[@marasmusine]

I find he uses a lot of philosophical terms and concepts that I (as a lay-person) don't understand, but that's why I like listening to him -- it's good to get unfamiliar perspectives, it's good to learn.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@solly119119 way too high and its unnecessary and sometimes wrong.

[@billbrenne5475]

Why not let reality speak for itself? I see the world and universe as a Tapestry that unfolds moment-by-moment at the Hand of God. Believing this, my duty is then to be real in my words and actions if I want to be close to God. It ALSO means that there is absolutely no time to even think about another life, since all of my time is devoted to being real in my words and actions. I therefore dont see any need or use for theology beyond, perhaps, what I've said here.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

-"Why not let reality speak for itself? I see the world and universe as a Tapestry that unfolds moment-by-moment at the Hand of God." -You talk about reality "speaking for itself" and immediately you insert magical agents in it. Why is that? -" Believing this, my duty is then to be real in my words and actions if I want to be close to God. " -Believing in that is an irrational act. You need to objective justify your belief before acting on that assumption.

[@billbrenne5475]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Ironically, dividing the world into those who are atheist, agnostic and theist is practically unavoidable, just as is the apparent sense that we have something inside us that transcends nature. You therefore have a right to your critique. On the other hand, God, no God or no comment about God, it's equally unavoidable that we are to be real in our words and actions because that's how we're designed. Unfortunately and ironically 🙂 , we also live in a broken symmetry. What I mean is, Time flows forward only--not backward. That's an asymmetry. And we have the Forces of Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & the Weak Nuclear Forces, according to the consensus, because there was an original, unified, "Superforce", which is supposed to have "broken apart" into the forces we know today at the moment of the Big Bang (I'm not saying that belief in the Big Bang is required). Similarly, human beings had a similar moment when we went from living in Tribes to roughly society as we know it today when population levels reached "critical mass". This promoted a far greater split among human beings than the mere cracks which existed prior to that point, the vast majority favoring collective, or group, protection, and the rest favoring self protection. It's easy for human beings to get caught in the trap especially in terms of favoring group protection as being the be-all and end-all of human life. But to favor the group means learning early on to pose and pretend--posture--because that's the only way to survive in collective society. On the other hand, those who favor self protection are likely to fall prey to sins of omission--neglect, irresponsibility, etc.--in other words, lying to themselves more than lying to others. So if we want to live in accordance with our design--to be real in our words and actions--then we must have a realistic perspective about life, which is that neither collective society nor individuality, by themselves, as guides to life and living can cut it in the real world, but must be re-integrated in our lives--hence our use of the word, "integrity". Clear? 🙂

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@billbrenne5475 -"Ironically, dividing the world into those who are atheist, agnostic and theist is practically unavoidable, just as is the apparent sense that we have something inside us that transcends nature." -First of all a proper division is between atheists and theists. BOth positions of beliefs can be the result of the lack of knowledge (agnosticism). They are not mutually exclusive...thus not divisive. Now how can you demonstrate that " we have something inside us that transcends nature". Maybe it would be a good think to define nature and its properties and point to our properties that aren't natural, what makes them unnatural and demonstrate that to be true. I am asking questions about claims that appear to be unfalsfiable. can you falsify your claim? -"...because that's how we're designed. " - How do you know that we are designed and how can you prove it? -"we also live in a broken symmetry. What I mean is, Time flows forward only--not backward. That's an asymmetry." -Symmetry is a spatial quality not a temporal one. -". And we have the Forces of Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & the Weak Nuclear Forces, according to the consensus, because there was an original, unified, "Superforce", which is supposed to have "broken apart" into the forces we know today at the moment of the Big Bang (I'm not saying that belief in the Big Bang is required)." -How do you know that and how can you prove it? Are there facts that objectively demonstrate the truth value of that claim? Can you define Superforce? Super because of what characteristic? -"Similarly, human beings had a similar moment when we went from living in Tribes to roughly society as we know it today when population levels reached "critical mass". " -Similar moment...with what ....the big bang? Evolution's laws do not change in biological by products (social organization). In archeology and anthropology we don't observe "big bangs" caused by superforces? can you elaborate? -"This promoted a far greater split among human beings than the mere cracks which existed prior to that point, the vast majority favoring collective, or group, protection, and the rest favoring self protection." -That is an amazingly oversimplified model and most anthropologists will disagree with it. I don't see any connection between your narrative and demonstrating the supernatural. DO you have something that could help me understand why people in 2022 are willing to accept unfounded claims without any objective verification?

[@billbrenne5475]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I think you're misunderstanding me. I was fixated on the idea that I have a soul. I was trying to understand emotions, and I kept trying to shoehorn in concepts of human dignity into the equation. Finally, i realized that my mom had been gone for over 20 years, my dad had been gone for over ten years, i was over 50, and what was i doing spinning my wheels? Much as i might rather be able to establish to myself that I and others have souls, reality kept flying in my face, since there was nothing grounded to go on to establish such a thing, a d when there's nothing solid to hang onto, I recognize that I'm only wasting my time, so I wistfully dropped it and wound up accepting my birthright as a natural, physical creature instead (the only other option was for me to become more and more dissociated and miss out on living this life on the grounds that my soul is one day going to leave this world instead, and why would this world matter at all in that case? Do you see what I'm saying? I expect that you're likely just as fixated on the notion that you have a soul as I was. But discarding the idea that I have a soul didnt have the dire consequences that I and others feared. I'm afraid that that's all that I can tell you. If you're on about God and the soul, I'm sure you'll be fine, but if you want to do the hard work of taking a close look at these things, I tell you now that you're views will change. I have never wanted to make the same mistakes that others have made down through the centuries. A BIG mistake that's made is being unwilling to surrender to this life, and this life alone in which you are placed to live and be real in.

[@billbrenne5475]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 on what grounds did you arrive at the mindset that it isnt certain that we are designed to be real in our words and actions? What part of reality did you derive this stance from? Do you see the silliness inherent here? It's like saying that there it's plausible to conclude that in order to survive in a real world that one must be unreal.

[@1962LIBBY]

Does mike live underground?

[@cnault3244]

"Utility Of Using Philosophy As God Proof " There is no utility using philosophy as god proof. A series of unproven premises will not be proof for anything.

[@eklektikTubb]

Yes, but philosophy is a base of reasoning and a first step towards critical thinking.

[@cnault3244]

@@eklektikTubb Critical thinking should tell you that to prove the existence of a god you must: 1) define the god clearly, without employing any logical fallacies in the definition 2) present evidence (for the now clearly defined god) that can be examined and verified Until then, there is no reason to believe any god exists.

[@eklektikTubb]

@@cnault3244 There is no reason to believe what critical thinking should or shouldnt tell you either. What should be done is to actually go there and to see it for yourself. First step is philosophy, starts with just "thinking" and leads to "critical thinking". (BTW, I am talking about philosophers as thinkers. Some philosophers are mere theorizers and scholarly book believers, i am not advocating for that approach at all.)

[@cnault3244]

@@eklektikTubb "First step is philosophy, starts with just "thinking" and leads to "critical thinking"." OK, start by asking yourself "I wonder if a god exists" then proceed from there. Step one, you would have to define what you meany by a god.

[@eklektikTubb]

@@cnault3244 Yes, that is a good start.

[@arthurzetes]

JMike talks way too much