What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Flat Earth; Geo-centricity; the Four Humours; Astrology; Natural Theology.

Moribund, Discredited, Empty; Empirically False; Logically Bankrupt.

[Immanuel Can]

By not giving any rational justification, especially when specifically being asked for that, is in another way just saying immanuel can has no rational justification at all for their belief and if you want some go look for them yourself.

That's a very, very silly argument.

In point of fact, the situation in regard to evidence is exactly as I said...not that there is "none," but that there is far too much for us to address here. However, if you've read around this site much, you would know that I have addressed it at some length on other strands. There is no good reason to derail this strand in order to go over territory that has been covered before, and on several occasions, simply because that's your whim. If you want to know the truth of that, you have what you need.

However, the fact that you are offered an excellent major source of information, and then dismiss it without even a cursory examination of it, well, that does, indeed, invite an obvious conclusion...but not, perhaps, the one you would like to compel.

[ken]

By not giving any rational justification, especially when specifically being asked for that, is in another way just saying immanuel can has no rational justification at all for their belief and if you want some go look for them yourself.

That's a very, very silly argument.

In point of fact, the situation in regard to evidence is exactly as I said...not that there is "none," but that there is far too much for us to address here. However, if you've read around this site much, you would know that I have addressed it at some length on other strands. There is no good reason to derail this strand in order to go over territory that has been covered before, and on several occasions, simply because that's your whim. If you want to know the truth of that, you have what you need.

However, the fact that you are offered an excellent major source of information, and then dismiss it without even a cursory examination of it, well, that does, indeed, invite an obvious conclusion...but not, perhaps, the one you would like to compel.

The very reason I asked if you had some rational justification for your belief was because you have not shown any in this forum that I have seen. But it must be noted that I have not seen all of that that you have written. What I have noticed from what I have seen from you is only attempts at trying to justify that what you already believe is true.

By the way that was NOT an argument at all. That was just My observation, which could be 100% totally wrong. You would just have to show that first. Surely if you had any rational justification for your position, then you would just give. It would solve ALL the unnecessary writing that goes on in here.

[Belinda]

Ken, Immanuel Can has often rationally defended his religious belief . IC's religious belief is that men need God to reveal right and wrong to them, as human reason and innate ability is insufficient.And also that God does, as a matter of fact, do so.

I don't share IC's belief but it is rational.

What do you mean by "rational"?

Ken wrote re Immanuel Can:

What I have noticed from what I have seen from you is only attempts at trying to justify that what you already believe is true.

Ken, do you know the difference in meaning between 'rational' and 'rationalise' ? I cannot make out what you demand from Immanuel Can. However I suspect that when you say that IC "attempts to justify" his belief you are intimating that iC should work from evidence towards his belief but that what IC does is impose his belief on available evidence.

That's to say IC's thought is a priori. If this is what you are saying, I agree. I disagree that a priori is not rational.

[ken]

Ken, Immanuel Can has often rationally defended his religious belief . IC's religious belief is that men need God to reveal right and wrong to them, as human reason and innate ability is insufficient.And also that God does, as a matter of fact, do so.

That was NOT the belief my questions related to. What my questions related to where in the actual questions I asked.

While we are looking at immanuel can's other belief, you stated this to immanuel can; Your main point is a good one and makes me think.. I am interested in seeing this point, if you can easily remember could you please direct me to where this main point is. I came into this thread very late and do not feel like searching back through many pages to look for it. It is also to easy for me to miss the actual point that you are referring to here. I am very interest in that main point especially because of your next remark.

I don't share IC's belief but it is rational.

If it is supposedly rational, then why do you not share it?

If it is supposedly rational, then what is there to dispute about that belief?

If it is supposedly rational, then why would you not follow it to the very end?

What do you mean by "rational"?

That which is based on and in accordance with reason and logic.

What is proposed has to be able to be reasoned and be able to be logically followed.

Ken wrote re Immanuel Can:

What I have noticed from what I have seen from you is only attempts at trying to justify that what you already believe is true.

Ken, do you know the difference in meaning between 'rational' and 'rationalise' ?

I would not like to take a guess at it without looking it up first, would you like me to do that? Better still I will go along with the difference in meaning that you provide. This way will be both be coming from the exact same perspective.

Why did you ask this anyway?

I cannot make out what you demand from Immanuel Can.

If asking a question comes across as a "demand", then I apologize. I do not know of any other way to ask a question then by just asking it.

What I am asking from immanuel can is the same as before;

Do you [immanuel can] say theism is a rational position?

If so, then what is your rational justification for it?

The questions have not changed, and are pretty simple straightforward ones I thought. I asked them in light of immanuel can stating;

To say that Atheism is a rational position would require rational justification; every bit as much as to be a Theist would. AND, If one makes any knowledge claim, one owes reasons and evidence.

immanuel can is a theist right, and correct me if I am wrong? I just then posed those two questions to immanuel can. What I am asking for is the reasons and evidence, or rational justification for immanuel can's knowledge claims that immanuel can states others owe under the exact same circumstances. If immanuel can can not provide a sound, valid argument, which obviously would be an unambiguous fact that God exists, which can not be disputed, then immanuel can has the rational justification, reasons and evidence to support that belief. But if immanuel can can not give a sound, valid argument that God exists, then what immanuel can is doing here is just trying to justify the belief that God exists, which is what is already being held onto strongly.

However I suspect that when you say that IC "attempts to justify" his belief you are intimating that iC should work from evidence towards his belief but that what IC does is impose his belief on available evidence.

What I am stating is immanuel can appears to just be trying to justify the already held belief that God already exists. I say immanuel can does this by picking out what suits and confirms the biases already being held. From what I have experienced with immanuel can I have not yet seen any reasonable justification for immanuel can to believe that God exists. As I have already stated I have not read everything immanuel can has written, but from what I have written, there is no rational justification for any one, including immanuel can, to believe that God exists. I am NOT stating what way immanuel can "should" do any thing but if immanuel can expects that others, who claim knowledge,owe reason and evidence, then I would suggest that immanuel can has no issue whatsoever also owing, by providing, reason and evidence for the knowledge that immanuel can also claims is true.

That's to say IC's thought is a priori. If this is what you are saying, I agree. I disagree that a priori is not rational.

Noted.

[Belinda]

Ken wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:01 am
I don't share IC's belief but it is rational.

If it is supposedly rational, then why do you not share it?

If it is supposedly rational, then what is there to dispute about that belief?

If it is supposedly rational, then why would you not follow it to the very end?

I don't share IC's belief because , 1. my preferred ontology is neutral monism, and therefore admits of no supernatural existence. Also 2. the evidence does not match any proposition that God is both good and all powerful.
I do follow IC's arguments because they have important practical implications for politics and morality.

within the terms of Immanuel's ontology and religious faith his thinking is rational. When it comes to evidence from real life I suspect that Immanuel rationalises a lot of the time. I don't know whether or not he is deceiving himself or if he rationalises to try to get others on his side.

I am trying to remember what you wrote about what 'rationalise' means. I don't think you quite got it but I may be wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

By the way that was NOT an argument at all. That was just My observation, which could be 100% totally wrong.

Indeed it was.

Well, now that that's cleared up, let's get to the OP.

[ken]

I am trying to remember what you wrote about what 'rationalise' means. I don't think you quite got it but I may be wrong.

It would not be that hard to remember considering it was only in the previous post to the one you wrote here. I do not know why you would think either way if I got it or not considering I did not give a definition and said I would let you write the definition and I would go along with that one.

I also ask you why did you ask that question. I do not know what it was in regards to, considering I was not talking about that.

But there is not much use moving forward with this discussion if you are not going to point Me to the main point, nor inform Me of why you are asking that question.

[ken]

By the way that was NOT an argument at all. That was just My observation, which could be 100% totally wrong.

Indeed it was.

Just like your view is.

Well, now that that's cleared up, let's get to the OP.

From what I have noticed you have not really been talking about the meaning of life anyway, but rather just trying to find support to back up your strongly held wrong beliefs.

[Belinda]

Ken wrote:

From what I have noticed you have not really been talking about the meaning of life anyway, but rather just trying to find support to back up your strongly held wrong beliefs.

This is exactly what I mean by rationalising. The reason for my trying to untangle the distinction between being rational, and rationalising, is that we all rationalise to some extent. Pure mathematics is not ever an occasion for rationalising, and neither is formal logic. However gleaning knowledge from statistics is infamous for rationalisations.

Historiography too is misleading especially when an entire population does not want to face facts.

I am wondering if or how much research scientists rationalise i.e. select evidence to suit an a priori theory. Maybe they rationalise all the time until some evidence emerges that simply cannot be ignored.

I still don't agree with Immanuel Can on the basis that my theory of existence is different from his.

[ken]

Ken wrote:

From what I have noticed you have not really been talking about the meaning of life anyway, but rather just trying to find support to back up your strongly held wrong beliefs.

This is exactly what I mean by rationalising.

But this is the first example you have given, so it is only now that I can somewhat see what you mean by 'rationalising'. I can now somewhat see the definition that you are giving to 'rationalize'.

The reason for my trying to untangle the distinction between being rational, and rationalising, is that we all rationalise to some extent.

But there was nothing to untangle. I already gave a definition of 'rational', you did not respond to that, so that part was settled, well for Me it is anyway. For the next part, remember I said I would leave it up to you to give the definition of 'rationalize' and I would go along with that. I have just been waiting for you and your definition. Now that I have somewhat an idea of the definition you are thinking of, and a view of what the reason was for that you were going down this track, now we can proceed far more easily.

You say, "We all rationalise, to some extent". As i am NOT like all, people, (which hopefully does not get misinterpreted at all. Saying that does NOT make me better than any one else, nor worse for that matter. Just different), anyhow I do not like to rationalize like all people do, to some extent. I do not have a view at all, as an end point, a goal, an outcome, nor one that I hold onto, therefore there is no thing that i am nor even could be trying to rationalise for, which is what you say all people do, to some extent. I prefer instead to just remain always open. Being open allows Me to see from an advantage point where there is not an already held view getting in the way, distorting, nor blocking the real and actual true picture that exists. From this advantage point I am just looking at what IS. Therefore, I am only seeing what the actual truth IS instantly. I already have an understanding.

Pure mathematics is not ever an occasion for rationalising, and neither is formal logic. However gleaning knowledge from statistics is infamous for rationalisations.

Historiography too is misleading especially when an entire population does not want to face facts.

I am wondering if or how much research scientists rationalise i.e. select evidence to suit an a priori theory. Maybe they rationalise all the time until some evidence emerges that simply cannot be ignored.

I would not say, all the time, and most people hope that one labeled a 'scientist' would not do it all, but I am pretty sure it will be found to happen far more often than realized and/or wanted. This is sometimes known as confirmation bias, and I have witness people explaining how and when other people do that, in order to support their particular, opposing view, but do not notice them self doing the exact same thing when they are trying to support their own particular, one-sided view on the issue.

If any person is holding onto or attached to a view, then they will try to support it, in any way possible.

I still don't agree with Immanuel Can on the basis that my theory of existence is different from his.

Okay, I understand far more of what you are saying now. I could not see what you were actually getting at before, but now I can see what great in-sights you are starting to realize.

This agreeing or disagreeing with one theory over another theory, however, especially when one of those theories is my theory, leads back to how all people will only look for and only see the so called "evidence" that backs up and supports the theory or view that they are already holding onto as being true, or the most accurate one. Scientists, are just people also, they are just given that label of 'scientist' because of a specific task they do, at that time, and as such "scientists", like all people are not infallible from this selecting evidence to support what they assume, think, know, and/or believe already to be true, or the most accurate truth. If they are assuming, thinking, and/or believing that they already know the truth, or the most accurate truth, in the first place, then, just like all people do, they will only look for supporting evidence.

For example, if, when scientists are studying the structure and behaviour of nature through observation and experiment, especially in regards to the Universe, Itself, they have some, even subliminal, thought like, in the beginning, in regards to the big bang for example, then this actual view that there was a "beginning", distorts, gets in the way of, and/or blocks completely the actual and true picture of what IS, the actual truth. Just one word like 'beginning' affects, or effects, (I have not yet learned which one is right), how much more can be discovered, learned, and understood.

The inner-talk that people say to themselves, no matter how subliminal the message is, or even if the thought was not even noticed, has far more bearing on truth and actuality, then people realize yet. No person is immune from self-talk, which distorts the actual Truth.

[surreptitious57]

It can be hard for human beings to just see some thing as it is without applying conscious or sub conscious bias
So the first step therefore to becoming more open minded is to actually acknowledge that one has such biases
Then the next step is to just observe without trying to interpret beyond this what is actually known to be true
Though it is entirely acceptable to ask necessary questions as they are just highlighting what is not yet known
An open mind can ask such questions and even provide possible answers but it should still carry on being open

[Dontaskme]

I think I can afford to compromise here without losing too much face..

Seriously, you really need to lose your face.

Have you ever seen your own face?

Come on now stop deluding yourself, be honest?

.

[Harbal]

Seriously, you really need to lose your face.

That would depend on what I had to replace it with.

Have you ever seen your own face?

Yes, all too often.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It can be hard for human beings to just see some thing as it is without applying conscious or sub conscious bias

It is not hard, it is impossible. Bias is your opinion, without it you have no opinion at all.

The negative connotation of bias implies that there is such a thing as a perfectly balanced view; nothing of the sort could be possible, and the 'balanced view' tends to be simply the bias of the observer who declares the other person as extreme or offering an unbalanced view.