Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

'It's just my opinion'


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#76    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 September 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 05 September 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

'Divinity' is the general concept of the divine. Not a specific, defined deity that is worshipped via religion, but the overarching concept of the divine. It is similar in this way to how we use 'humanity' to describe the concept of humans.

How can a overarching concept of the divine actually be defined as nothing?  'Divine' does have some content and some definition, doesn't it?  If it doesn't, then why are you even discussing a word that has no definition?  This is not analogous to 'humanity', that has a much more succinct definition and, no, cannot and does not mean 'nothing', 'anything', nor 'everything'.

I don't think you should be stating it as divine having no 'known' characteristics; again, we're addressing claims and propositions, whether we conclude that there is any actual knowledge supporting or not supporting those claims is a separate issue.  Theists make claims, and those claims are not that the divine is nothing.  

Every definition I can find refers to atheism being the disbelief in gods or supreme beings, not just a nebulous entirely undefined 'divine'; maybe we're not even agreeing on what atheism actually is since I think you think it is the rejection of the undefined 'divine', when atheism is apparently narrower than that, since the divine can mean anything.  As I said before, it's pretty hard to assent or dissent from something that has no definition.  And I find 'can be anything, everything , or nothing' to be equivalent to having no definition.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#77    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,059 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 September 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

How can a overarching concept of the divine actually be defined as nothing?

Because of the possibility that the divine does not exist.

Quote

Every definition I can find refers to atheism being the disbelief in gods or supreme beings, not just a nebulous entirely undefined 'divine'...

And what are all those various concepts of "gods or supreme beings" lumped under?

Could the label for that be "divinity"?

Edited by Leonardo, 05 September 2013 - 08:03 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#78    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostJ. K., on 05 September 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Liquid Gardens, pardon the interruption.  I am curious about the meaning of "belief" in this context.  Does belief imply no fact or evidence at all?  I have always thought of "belief" as accepting an alleged fact either with or without proof.  For example: I believe in the law of gravity, just as I belief that a God exists.

Good question J.K.; I use belief to mean just something that someone thinks to be true, no matter how well it is actually supported by reality.  It doesn't imply no evidence or facts to support it, and I think it has general and specific meanings, I usually differentiate it from 'facts', although one could validly say using a general 'belief' definition that facts are also just ultimately beliefs.  Tough to be specific, but I think 'beliefs' can be based on facts and evidence, but that usually those facts and evidence also support other interpretations and are not what we usually call direct evidence.  If you have enough direct evidence, at some point we move from mere belief to knowledge, although I don't think there's some clear cut line when that exactly happens.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#79    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,187 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:04 PM

There are a number of places around the world that are seen as somehow "holy," (whatever that might mean) and, interestingly, have remained so even through changes in the culture and prevailing beliefs.  This may be just cultural influence of the earlier culture on its successors, or maybe there is something real in this concept and these places really are in some way different from the mundane world.


#80    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,187 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:07 PM

I tend to prefer the word "holy:" over "divine," as the latter implies gods while the former is not limited that way and could be special in some other manner.  A "divine person" is a god of some sort, a "holy person" is not.

Since I don't believe in any of the Western "Gods" and am agnostic about other gods, calling something "divine" carries Western assumptions that I don't care to make.


#81    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:16 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 05 September 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Because of the possibility that the divine does not exist.

I think then we have stumbled on the crux of the issue then and why I'm struggling to understand your point.  I asked how the divine is defined; whether or not it actually exists is orthogonal to that and does not result in the definition of it now being 'nothing' if it is shown to not actually exist.  Dragons, hobbits, elves, Paul Bunyan, Bugs Bunny all have some qualities and characteristics and thus, definitions; those definitions do not change to 'nothing' if/when we find they don't exist.

Quote

And what are all those various concepts of "gods or supreme beings" lumped under?

Could the label for that be "divinity"?

Yes, that sounds right, but then we have the start of an actual definition then don't we?  And if gods are lumped under 'divinity', then it is nonsensical to say that the divine may then be simultaneously defined as nothing.  Things don't have to actually exist in order to possess content and have some definition.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#82    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,059 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:21 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 September 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

I think then we have stumbled on the crux of the issue...

No, we stumbled across that quite some time ago when you conflated divinity with leprechauns.

Quote

then and why I'm struggling to understand your point.

You struggle to understand my point because of your insistence that "definition" has to mean "has a beard, wears red trousers, etc". Existence and/or non-existence is part of a definition.

Quote

I asked how the divine is defined; whether or not it actually exists is orthogonal to that and does not result in the definition of it now being 'nothing' if it is shown to not actually exist.  Dragons, hobbits, elves, Paul Bunyan, Bugs Bunny all have some qualities and characteristics and thus, definitions; those definitions do not change to 'nothing' if/when we find they don't exist.


Consider, in analogy, a group of beings who are debating whether "humanity" exists. This "humanity" is alleged to be a different group of supposedly intelligent creatures, however no evidence for any intelligent beings (apart from the debaters) has ever been discovered. There are also factions within the debaters who believe "humanity" exists, and who have rather specific definitions for what those "humans" are like, their natures and attributes. Not all of these definitions agree, and some are even contradictory.

Is the definition of "humanity" the concatenation of all the definitions those factions of believers have, or is it simply "supposedly intelligent beings who are rumoured to exist"? Are those who do not believe these undiscovered beings exist not entitled to issue a description of them which includes "does not exist"?

And so, in the objective sense the definition of "humanity" to that entire group of debaters is "supposedly intelligent beings who may, or may not, exist but for whom no evidence has been found."?

Edited by Leonardo, 05 September 2013 - 09:25 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#83    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,736 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Freud )

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:30 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 September 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Good question J.K.; I use belief to mean just something that someone thinks to be true, no matter how well it is actually supported by reality.  It doesn't imply no evidence or facts to support it, and I think it has general and specific meanings, I usually differentiate it from 'facts', although one could validly say using a general 'belief' definition that facts are also just ultimately beliefs.  Tough to be specific, but I think 'beliefs' can be based on facts and evidence, but that usually those facts and evidence also support other interpretations and are not what we usually call direct evidence.  If you have enough direct evidence, at some point we move from mere belief to knowledge, although I don't think there's some clear cut line when that exactly happens.

I was (in truth) wondering this too, it is a good point. If we apply the rules of logic and start with deductive, the given cannot get off the ground simply because the premise is not based on a known fact(proven). So proving any g-d one way or the other is pointless/futile. What's left then is inductive reasoning and it is appropriate to arrive at some kind of conclusion based on observation, experimentation, or measurement. So I could say I had a personal experience that leads me to make a conjecture that there is a Christian g-d (for me) based on personal experience-- I can justify that this belief is possible/reasonable-- but what I cannot posit is that it is proof or a truth of the same g-d, nor could I  then assume that all other g-d's exist because again I would have to do this deductively off a postulate. But I could to establish a belief in any g-d.

For this reason-- I do  think one can legitimately have a belief in a g-d, based on the criteria allowed for inductive logic. I think it is valid to say I have a belief in such a such a g-d based on the bible, or based on a personal experience, or even based on choice--for that matter. But the most important aspect is these things are not proof of any g-d. but they can serve as reasonable to conclude/conjecture that my belief is valid/logical..
This is my logic flow  on the matter and I conclude atheist(for me) based on this , but I could very well conclude agnostic or theist with the same darn argument. So, LQ I think that you were correct in pointing out that the distinction is really meaningless.  But I could be wrong, I could have some errors in my logic mojo, of course I am open to corrections.

Edited by Sherapy, 05 September 2013 - 09:35 PM.




#84    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,736 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Freud )

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostJ. K., on 05 September 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Liquid Gardens, pardon the interruption.  I am curious about the meaning of "belief" in this context.  Does belief imply no fact or evidence at all?  I have always thought of "belief" as accepting an alleged fact either with or without proof.  For example: I believe in the law of gravity, just as I belief that a God exists.

J.K., great point!




#85    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,187 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:43 PM

I continue to point out that a soon as you attribute any sort of "infinite" to such a God, you end up with self-referent logical contradictions.  This is equivalent to proving the premise is false.  Therefore I think intellectual honesty regarding that kind of "God" requires atheism.

Of course gods are conceivable that are not infinite in any way.  That is a different discussion: maybe Alexander the Great was a god after all.  Therefore I am agnostic regarding the existence of this sort of god.

"Personal testimony" is not affirmative evidence; indeed, it is negative evidence and only indicates indoctrination.

The Bible as evidence for God or gods is hard to approach with a straight face.

That one might "choose" to believe rather than not believe is also evidence of indoctrination, not evidence for God.


#86    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,736 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Freud )

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:49 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 05 September 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

No, we stumbled across that quite some time ago when you conflated divinity with leprechauns.



You struggle to understand my point because of your insistence that "definition" has to mean "has a beard, wears red trousers, etc". Existence and/or non-existence is part of a definition.




Consider, in analogy, a group of beings who are debating whether "humanity" exists. This "humanity" is alleged to be a different group of supposedly intelligent creatures, however no evidence for any intelligent beings (apart from the debaters) has ever been discovered. There are also factions within the debaters who believe "humanity" exists, and who have rather specific definitions for what those "humans" are like, their natures and attributes. Not all of these definitions agree, and some are even contradictory.

Is the definition of "humanity" the concatenation of all the definitions those factions of believers have, or is it simply "supposedly intelligent beings who are rumoured to exist"? Are those who do not believe these undiscovered beings exist not entitled to issue a description of them which includes "does not exist"?

And so, in the objective sense the definition of "humanity" to that entire group of debaters is "supposedly intelligent beings who may, or may not, exist but for whom no evidence has been found."?

Leo, you are using divinity and it really doesn't  have a common understanding, that I am aware of( maybe where you are it does but here U.S. it doesn't.) It is appropriate and fair to you, for the sake of moving the conversation forward to ask you how you are defining divinity. I believe that is all LQ is  asking and I am wondering the same thing. Thanks for your help.




#87    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:57 PM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 05 September 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:



Thank yourself lucky, because normally when the odd religious person cannot address a valid and logical point, they usually toss a bible verse in your path, and think that may distract you..I get that now and again. lol :P
Why do you assume I'm religious? My point was that the idea of God is unfalsifiable and therefore non-scientific


#88    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,346 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:31 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 September 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

"Personal testimony" is not affirmative evidence; indeed, it is negative evidence and only indicates indoctrination.

The Bible as evidence for God or gods is hard to approach with a straight face.

That one might "choose" to believe rather than not believe is also evidence of indoctrination, not evidence for God.

Are you using the strict definition of "indoctrinate" - to teach - or are you ascribing sinister, cultic aspects of control to the word?  At no time in my life have I ever been under any religious leader's control.  I have always been free to incorporate any knowledge gained into my life in my own way, pick and choose.  I think perhaps you are letting your own history color your statement a bit.

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#89    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,187 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:40 PM

Indoctrination into a religion or into a political belief system generally happens during childhood.  It can be self-done via wishful thinking or hypnosis or meditation.  I don't think people can come to believe irrational things any other way.


#90    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,187 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:43 PM

I might add that propaganda can make the irrational seem rational -- techniques such as testimony, stacked deck, the Big Lie, appeals to our better selves and what we wish were true, and of course that old standby, cultural pressure and even legal pressure.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users