Religion

[Univalence]

Ah. So in a kind of blank, relativistic sense, then. We have no epistemic standards, you say.

On the contrary. We have two "standards". And I am not at all interested in calibrating mine to yours.

So, just how did you discern this, in the absence of the possibility of any epistemic standards, and what makes you believe I'm wrong, since no criteria exist?

Where have I asserted that you are "wrong"? I have merely asserted that:
1. You have gone beyond epistemic testability to claim a sentient God as a First Cause
2. You have not interpreted that which you deem as "factual evidence" from an alternative hypothetical viewpoint.

I asked you why you asked the alien question: because you regarded it as a fiction or as a fact. You still haven't answered.

And I refuse to answer you on your terms.

I consider it neither fact nor fiction! I consider it a hypothesis. Exactly like the God-hypothesis. If you consider the existence of God as anything more than a hypothesis then I consider you a lunatic (from an epistemic viewpoint).

You clearly missed my point! We could totally agree on the FACT that Jesus was a factual being that walked the Earth. Healed the sick. Raised the dead. Fed the poor.

From there onwards I am still free to interpret that fact from the perspective of the Son-of-God-hypothesis; OR from the perspective of the Alien-visitors hypothesis.

And the epistemic FACT remains. If an entity stood before you right now, raised the dead, fed the poor and cured the sick you would still be unable to determine if that entity is the Son of God or an Alien visitor.

[Immanuel Can]

On the contrary. We have two "standards". And I am not at all interested in calibrating mine to yours.

Okay, but what two standards do we have?

Where have I asserted that you are "wrong"? I have merely asserted that:
1. You have gone beyond epistemic testability to claim a sentient God as a First Cause

Not so. The First Cause argument is purely mathematical. That's actually a higher epistemic standard that empiricism (i.e. "testability"). It is logically certain, given a causal chain. The only way it can be subverted is by denying the existence of causal chains. But causal chains are very empirically testable, so that won't work.

And I refuse to answer you on your terms.

Yeah, I get that. Unfortunately, my terms are logical, being premised on the Law of Non-Contradiction.

We could totally agree on the FACT that Jesus was a factual being that walked the Earth. Healed the sick. Raised the dead. Fed the poor.

From there onwards I am still free to interpret that fact from the perspective of the Son-of-God-hypothesis; OR from the perspective of the Alien-visitors hypothesis.

Yes, you are.

But the "alien" hypothesis isn't really ultimately explanatory, because it creates the objection, "Since aliens are contingent beings, what created the aliens?" Not so with the God Hypothesis: in that, the Creation is performed by the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause necessitated absolutely by the causal regression chain.

And a second problem: in the "alien" hypothesis, almost every word spoken by this widely-celebrated moral teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, would turn out to be a lie: He was not the Son of God, He was not the equal of God, He was not Messiah, He was not even a prophet...he was an alien masquerading as those things. So now you couldn't include Him among the "great moral teachers" of history...you'd have to say He wasn't morally upright at all...He was a deceiver.

Is that, in fact, what you think is plausible to say?

[Univalence]

Okay, but what two standards do we have?

Yours and mine.

Where you seem to insist that a particular scenario is a dichotomy despite me presenting alternatives.

Not so. The First Cause argument is purely mathematical. That's actually a higher epistemic standard that empiricism (i.e. "testability"). It is logically certain, given a causal chain. The only way it can be subverted is by denying the existence of causal chains. But causal chains are very empirically testable, so that won't work.

Q.E.D I disagree on "pure mathematics" being an epistemic standard of any kind.

Yeah, I get that. Unfortunately, my terms are logical, being premised on the Law of Non-Contradiction.

You shouldn't appeal to logic when you don't understand logic. The LNC is not a law. It's an axiom.

A logical system in which true contradictions are possible is called a dialethism.

But the "alien" hypothesis isn't really ultimately explanatory, because it creates the objection, "Since aliens are contingent beings, what created the aliens?"
Not so with the God Hypothesis: in that, the Creation is performed by the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause necessitated absolutely by the causal regression chain.

More Q.E.D you want your hypothesis to be explanatory. I want my hypothesis to be informative.
So you are necessarily claiming that the "First Cause" is not a contingent being. Evidence please?

An uncaused First Cause predicts everything. If a scientific model predicts everything, then in practice it predicts nothing.

And a second problem: in the "alien" hypothesis, almost every word spoken by this widely-celebrated moral teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, would turn out to be a lie: He was not the Son of God, He was not the equal of God, He was not Messiah, He was not even a prophet...he was an alien masquerading as those things. So now you couldn't include Him among the "great moral teachers" of history...you'd have to say He wasn't morally upright at all...He was a deceiver.

Or.... Jesus understood that human brains are baffled by bullshit and fairy tales of magic and miracles, and bored by science, knowledge and actual understanding and so he did what was necessary to "install" the great moral lessons in the minds of those primitive hairless apes.

He spoke to them in a language that they could understand given their level of knowledge. The language of gods, miracles and prophecies.
For he knew that quantum physics, or telling a truth that cannot be comprehended by such primitive creatures, is going to get him nowhere.

Is that, in fact, what you think is plausible to say?

It's a fucking outlandish hypothesis. But it's still less batshit crazy than a sentient being as a first cause.

[Univalence]

(....)

I do notice you are continuously dodging my epistemic point in all of your replies.

If an entity stood before you at this very moment. Raised the dead, fed the poor and cured the sick and other mind-boggling miracles beyond anything humans could imagine possible.

How would you determine if that entity is the Son of God or a Super-intelligent Alien visitor?
What empirical test would you perform to disambiguate the two hypotheses before you?

[Belinda]

Religion is undoubtedly something that human beings do so the word is not redundant. Man's religious quest should be looked at objectively especially at this time of huge moral and scientific change. We need to know our past so that we can know what is the best choice for our future.

I say "our future" ,singular, as the world is now all one place where Western European culture has penetrated everywhere.

[Univalence]

Religion is undoubtedly something that human beings do so the word is not redundant. Man's religious quest should be looked at objectively especially at this time of huge moral and scientific change. We need to know our past so that we can know what is the best choice for our future.

Defining “God” as the set of likely destinations of future space-time coordinates is not unheard of.

Simply: Given the choices that we make, where are we likely to converge?

“Objective morality” then is the point where we SHOULD converge. Heaven.

And the points we must absolutely avoid. Hell.

[Belinda]

Univalence wrote:

Defining “God” as the set of likely destinations of future space-time coordinates is not unheard of.

But the historical perspective is one of several methods to define God. The psychological method is good. The historical perspective is unlike the space-time coordinates metaphor because mathematics is certain whereas historiography and futurology are interpretative.

[Univalence]

But the historical perspective is one of several methods to define God. The psychological method is good. The historical perspective is unlike the space-time coordinates metaphor because mathematics is certain whereas historiography and futurology are interpretative.

The mathematics of stochastics and forecasting are far from certain.

[Scott Mayers]

Religion is an artificial construct by people wanting to EXCUSE their behavior in light of differences of condition that lack logical universal justice or practical fairness. If one is relatively well off (condition) and they WANT to conserve their present position of power in some way in an environment suspect of them of greed, by imposing upon others that their fortune is just a preferential favoritism of some unseen Nature, this keeps at bay the means of society to hold them accountable. For those less fortunate, and generally more populous, rising up against the societies that utilize the present system of laws as what is 'just' as a means to KEEP these people in chains by some measure makes them counter with seeking a super-morality of Nature that begs appeal to their empowerment.

This is so conventional an Atheist telling of the way things seem to them that I think there's not much point in us dealing with it. It's been asked-and-answered a thousand times, but Atheists just aren't listening.

Really, it is time for some original thinking about this. The old Atheist canards have long ago begun to breed worms and stink. We know them, we've heard them, we've answered them...what's left? We've heard from Marx, Freud, Darwin and Nietzsche, considered their claims and found answers. We've provided those answers, and yet Atheists can's seem to find anything fresh to say. so they just keep the old stuff circulating. They really need a new hymn book.

As for their thought on this particular subject, the danger of just lumping everything belief-related on earth and calling it "religion" is that you no longer have any reason to look at particulars. The whole lot just looks like bosh. But the reasons for that are that the Atheist has simply obscured his own vision -- he's so urgent about dismissing it all, so as to assert Atheism, that he cannot see any distinctions or wisdom out of the whole mass. He actually knows nothing about "religion": he's just arbitrarily decided there's nothing for him to see.

And your response is pointing out to me that you are an intentional con. I don't see you insufficiently justified to escape accountability here by some naivete. As such, I anticipate that you won't give up your insistence of that Atheist is a form of belief on par with the stupidity of religion. By equating a "lack of belief" with a KIND of religion, you'd have to impose that even 'belief' that accompanies KNOWLEDGE of ANY kind is no different than religion.

And for Immanuel Can here, I must ask you this if I hadn't already: IF the Atheist is the ultimate fearful position you can think of...

It's not. I actually find it quite a "toothless tiger": it makes a lot of "roar," but when it comes down to it, it's got no bite.

... imagine what those same atheists can do when behind the cultivation of fostering and creating religion rather than fighting it?

There's no need to "imagine". We've seen it in reality.

Communism is a great example: it's Atheism + ideology. The combination has killed more human beings than any force in history. That is a worse combination than blank Atheism. But unfortunately, blank Atheism doesn't really hold: the problem is that the Atheist has no resources in Atheism for orienting his life, so he has to add them from some other ideology.

And that combination is indeed fatal, to the tune of well over 100 million in the last century alone.

I tell you what: IF you ARE not a fraud, you'd have nothing to fear for being yourself here as I am. Hiding behind a positive aphorism for a name here without willing to BE YOURSELF is counter to presenting FAITH in your 'god'. Worse than one asserting religious beliefs is one who applies hypocrisy to promote it.

[Immanuel Can]

Where you seem to insist that a particular scenario is a dichotomy despite me presenting alternatives.

Not all "alternatives" are genuine. "Alternatives" are only as valuable as their rational and moral credentials.

Not so. The First Cause argument is purely mathematical. That's actually a higher epistemic standard that empiricism (i.e. "testability"). It is logically certain, given a causal chain. The only way it can be subverted is by denying the existence of causal chains. But causal chains are very empirically testable, so that won't work.

Q.E.D I disagree on "pure mathematics" being an epistemic standard of any kind.

You misunderstand.

Mathematics is analytic, not synthetic. Once we understand the fundamental mathematical meanings, then there is no debating their consequences. Once you know what a "2" is and what a "4", you cannot debate "2 + 2 = 4."

Mathematics does not require our approval in order to be right.

The LNC is not a law. It's an axiom.

True, but not importantly true. It's a fundamental of rational thought.

A logical system in which true contradictions are possible is called a dialethism.

Dialetheisms are special exceptions to the axiom, requiring very particular conditions, such as the absence of an identifiable threshold state between two alternatives. Question of existence are not like that: a thing exists, or it does not. There are no threshold states there.

You want your hypothesis to be explanatory. I want my hypothesis to be informative.

So you want your hypothesis to "inform" you of something that doesn't actually "explain"?

So you are necessarily claiming that the "First Cause" is not a contingent being. Evidence please?

Mathematics. A causal chain cannot be infinite, but requires some absolute inception point. Whatever that absolute inception point is, it has to be a necessary entity.

Or.... Jesus...did what was necessary to "install" the great moral lessons in the minds of those primitive hairless apes.

So your argument there is that what He said was a lie, but in net effect it worked out?

We do have a name for people who knowingly say things that are actually false, and do so in order to produce a desired effect...just not a name one ought to give the greatest moral teacher.

[Immanuel Can]

As such, I anticipate that you won't give up your insistence of that Atheist is a form of belief on par with the stupidity of religion.

No. I would simply argue that the term "religion" is a term of Atheist artifice, not an accurate or informative one.

I tell you what: IF you ARE not a fraud, you'd have nothing to fear for being yourself here as I am. Hiding behind a positive aphorism...

You mean "pseudonym," I think.

But I find your complaint disingenuous. We have no way of knowing what your real name is, and using a pseudonym is the rule on this site, you'll find, not the exception: and not only on this website, but on websites generally.

Your point is merely ad hominem, and fails to address the issue of what views and reasons are offered here, which is all that ultimately matters.

[Immanuel Can]

If an entity stood before you at this very moment. Raised the dead, fed the poor and cured the sick and other mind-boggling miracles beyond anything humans could imagine possible.

How would you determine if that entity is the Son of God or a Super-intelligent Alien visitor?
What empirical test would you perform to disambiguate the two hypotheses before you?

You've forgotten a few details. Let me fill them in for you.

Include that the "entity" fulfilled precisely over 300 prophecies made about him, many including things the "entity" himself could not have plausibly pre-arranged, like the place and circumstances of his own birth, say. And let's say he never claimed of himself, "I am an alien," but rather, "I am the Son of God." And let's say the entity did all the things you attribute to him, and on top of it was acclaimed as the greatest moral teacher who ever lived. And as a capper, let's say he did one final miracle -- verifiably dying and rising again from the dead...and let's say the "entity" continued afterward for a couple of millennia to work with an empower a group of people who followed him...

Would you, then, think I had a good reason to prefer one hypothesis over the other?

And if not, then what additional sign would the "entity" have to perform in order to convince you?

[Belinda]

But the historical perspective is one of several methods to define God. The psychological method is good. The historical perspective is unlike the space-time coordinates metaphor because mathematics is certain whereas historiography and futurology are interpretative.

The mathematics of stochastics and forecasting are far from certain.

By "futurology" which I said is interpretative, I meant forecasting. I don't understand what stochastics has to do with interpretation.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I would simply argue that the term "religion" is a term of Atheist artifice, not an accurate or informative one.

There is a hint of truth in this .' Religion' is variously defined. As Immanuel perhaps recalls I support the anthropological and sociological concept 'religion'.
Religion: all peoples need a degree of moral coherence and religion is the name for an institution the use of which is to enshrine moral coherence.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I would simply argue that the term "religion" is a term of Atheist artifice, not an accurate or informative one.

There is a hint of truth in this .

More than a hint, I would say.

In fact, I think that you will find nobody of any ideological stripe who will define themselves as simply "religious." They'll say, "I'm a Hindu," or "I'm a Rastafarian." That, in itself, shows that the label comes from outside, as a negative and dismissive collective term.