Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[Age]

Age is GOD in disguise. Go away GOD, no one likes you.

ONCE AGAIN this one has FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, in being able to just CLARIFY.

Which MEANS what this one CLAIMED mattered for you human beings REALLY DOES NOT. Or, this one is just AN IDIOT who had NOT thought through its CLAIM, ONCE MORE.

[Age]

In this light, metaphysics isn’t a contradiction to determinism—it’s one of its more intriguing manifestations.

This is an absurd statement. I sense that this is one of those (many) points in your discourse where after having snatched away with your left hand what is required to allow philosophy and higher-realm speculation to *exist*, that you clumsily reintroduce it because you cannot, and we cannot, do without it.

Your response is a tangled web of assumptions and mischaracterizations, veering away from engagement with the substance of what I’ve said into yet another exercise in rhetorical evasion....

...If you want to criticize my ideas, do so with specificity and clarity. Otherwise, your objections are just hollow complaints, more concerned with preserving your own worldview than engaging with the actual arguments on the table.

My goodness, BigMike, you certainly have a lot of gall for accusing Alexis of veering away from engaging with the substance of your arguments when, in fact, that is precisely what you have done with me.

If you are so confident in the theory of determinism, then why did you make no effort to defend it against the clear and specific issues I raised in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=746475#p746475

Instead, you avoided addressing them by using the lame excuse that I was making a "detour" from the topic of the thread.

To which I then pointed out to you that, no, I was simply responding to something that you, yourself, said in that thread.

And your response to that was.....silence.

Don't be a hypocrite, BigMike, for it not only makes you look small, but it reveals your lacking in self-awareness.
_______

Seeds, your 'detailed critiques' are nothing more than metaphysical musings that don't address or challenge the fundamental principles of determinism, conservation laws, or the four fundamental forces. Raising unanswered questions about the origins of the universe or dark matter is not the same as disproving causality or determinism. If you want to refute my arguments, bring evidence or logic that contradicts these physical principles—anything less is just hand-waving.

"bigmike", your 'detailed critiques' are nothing more than metaphysical musings that do not address nor challenge the fundamental principles of free will, itself. Raising things is not the same as disproving free will, itself. If you want to refute arguments, bring evidence, or preferably actual logic and actual proof that contradicts the physical principles of free will —anything less is just hand-waving.

[Atla]

Age is GOD in disguise. Go away GOD, no one likes you.

ONCE AGAIN this one has FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, in being able to just CLARIFY.

Which MEANS what this one CLAIMED mattered for you human beings REALLY DOES NOT. Or, this one is just AN IDIOT who had NOT thought through its CLAIM, ONCE MORE.

That's like, just your opinion, GOD.

[Age]

Age is GOD in disguise. Go away GOD, no one likes you.

ONCE AGAIN this one has FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, in being able to just CLARIFY.

Which MEANS what this one CLAIMED mattered for you human beings REALLY DOES NOT. Or, this one is just AN IDIOT who had NOT thought through its CLAIM, ONCE MORE.

That's like, just your opinion, GOD.

LOL AND your opinion is ABSOLUTELY NO one likes God. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, let alone being OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False. But, it is YOUR OPINION anyway.

Now, what you CLAIM, here, is 'just my opinion', you have ALREADY PROVED True, and Right.

LOL what you, laughing, CLAIM is that, 'What matters for you humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes', BUT which you KEEP FAILING to just inform the readers of WHY 'this', supposedly, 'matters' for you human beings.

[Atla]

ONCE AGAIN this one has FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, in being able to just CLARIFY.

Which MEANS what this one CLAIMED mattered for you human beings REALLY DOES NOT. Or, this one is just AN IDIOT who had NOT thought through its CLAIM, ONCE MORE.

That's like, just your opinion, GOD.

LOL AND your opinion is ABSOLUTELY NO one likes God. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, let alone being OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False. But, it is YOUR OPINION anyway.

Now, what you CLAIM, here, is 'just my opinion', you have ALREADY PROVED True, and Right.

LOL what you, laughing, CLAIM is that, 'What matters for you humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes', BUT which you KEEP FAILING to just inform the readers of WHY 'this', supposedly, 'matters' for you human beings.

It's self-explanatory why. Unfortunately due to a shocking cosmic coincidence, GOD is about as dull as the human he's possessing, Age. That's why GOD doesn't get the why, doesn't even understand the word "matters".

[Age]

That's like, just your opinion, GOD.

LOL AND your opinion is ABSOLUTELY NO one likes God. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, let alone being OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False. But, it is YOUR OPINION anyway.

Now, what you CLAIM, here, is 'just my opinion', you have ALREADY PROVED True, and Right.

LOL what you, laughing, CLAIM is that, 'What matters for you humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes', BUT which you KEEP FAILING to just inform the readers of WHY 'this', supposedly, 'matters' for you human beings.

It's self-explanatory why. Unfortunately due to a shocking cosmic coincidence, GOD is about as dull as the human he's possessing, Age. That's why GOD doesn't get the why, doesn't even understand the word "matters".

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is HAPPENING and OCCURRING, here, is you KEEP PROVING that you are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR back up and support YOUR CLAIM, here.

ALSO, you MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMING things, like you are, here, ONCE AGAIN, without EVER SEEKING OUT ACTUAL CLARIFICATION just SHOWS and REVEALS how you KEEP MAKING MISTAKES and False CLAIMS.

LOL This one does NOT even KNOW the WHY to what it CLAIMS.

This one CLAIMS that it 'matters'. YET, as it HAS SHOWN and REVEALED, it does NOT even KNOW WHY it, SUPPOSEDLY, 'matters'.

What REALLY MATTERS to human beings IS PROOF. YET, LOL, this one HAS ABSOLUTELY NONE, here.

Making the CLAIM that 'What matters for humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes' is BEYOND A JOKE.

Now, I have, AGAIN, given this one PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY to back up and support its CLAIM, which it has OBVIOUSLY, YET AGAIN, FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, TO DO, ONCE MORE.

LOL it does NOT 'matter' ONE IOTA if the observable part of the Universe is 'deterministic', or not. (And, this is even without the, LAUGHABLE, 'enough' part.

And, HOW this one ARRIVED AT the CONCLUSION, 'So, 'determinism', is true for ALL our practical purposes', is BEYOND ABSURD, AS WELL.

LOL If ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to BREAK DOWN this one's words in its CLAIM, here, and have A DISCUSSION, then, PLEASE, let 'us' do this.

What WILL TRANSPIRE will be VERY FUNNY, INDEED.

[Belinda]

ONCE AGAIN this one has FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, in being able to just CLARIFY.

Which MEANS what this one CLAIMED mattered for you human beings REALLY DOES NOT. Or, this one is just AN IDIOT who had NOT thought through its CLAIM, ONCE MORE.

That's like, just your opinion, GOD.

LOL AND your opinion is ABSOLUTELY NO one likes God. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, let alone being OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False. But, it is YOUR OPINION anyway.

Now, what you CLAIM, here, is 'just my opinion', you have ALREADY PROVED True, and Right.

LOL what you, laughing, CLAIM is that, 'What matters for you humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes', BUT which you KEEP FAILING to just inform the readers of WHY 'this', supposedly, 'matters' for you human beings.

It matters because when we know the probable causes of events we can better stop the bad events happening again; do you allege that Atla does not know this?

[Atla]

LOL AND your opinion is ABSOLUTELY NO one likes God. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, let alone being OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False. But, it is YOUR OPINION anyway.

Now, what you CLAIM, here, is 'just my opinion', you have ALREADY PROVED True, and Right.

LOL what you, laughing, CLAIM is that, 'What matters for you humans is that the observable part is deterministic enough, so determinism is true for all our practical purposes', BUT which you KEEP FAILING to just inform the readers of WHY 'this', supposedly, 'matters' for you human beings.

It's self-explanatory why. Unfortunately due to a shocking cosmic coincidence, GOD is about as dull as the human he's possessing, Age. That's why GOD doesn't get the why, doesn't even understand the word "matters".

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is HAPPENING and OCCURRING, here, is you KEEP PROVING that you are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR back up and support YOUR CLAIM, here.

ALSO, you MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMING things, like you are, here, ONCE AGAIN, without EVER SEEKING OUT ACTUAL CLARIFICATION just SHOWS and REVEALS how you KEEP MAKING MISTAKES and False CLAIMS.

LOL This one does NOT even KNOW the WHY to what it CLAIMS.

This one CLAIMS that it 'matters'. YET, as it HAS SHOWN and REVEALED, it does NOT even KNOW WHY it, SUPPOSEDLY, 'matters'.

What REALLY MATTERS to human beings IS PROOF. YET, LOL, this one HAS ABSOLUTELY NONE, here.

Looks like GOD needs a better anger management therapy.

[Age]

It's self-explanatory why. Unfortunately due to a shocking cosmic coincidence, GOD is about as dull as the human he's possessing, Age. That's why GOD doesn't get the why, doesn't even understand the word "matters".

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is HAPPENING and OCCURRING, here, is you KEEP PROVING that you are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR back up and support YOUR CLAIM, here.

ALSO, you MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMING things, like you are, here, ONCE AGAIN, without EVER SEEKING OUT ACTUAL CLARIFICATION just SHOWS and REVEALS how you KEEP MAKING MISTAKES and False CLAIMS.

LOL This one does NOT even KNOW the WHY to what it CLAIMS.

This one CLAIMS that it 'matters'. YET, as it HAS SHOWN and REVEALED, it does NOT even KNOW WHY it, SUPPOSEDLY, 'matters'.

What REALLY MATTERS to human beings IS PROOF. YET, LOL, this one HAS ABSOLUTELY NONE, here.

Looks like GOD needs a better anger management therapy.

LOL This one KEEP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, WITHOUT ONCE EVER CONSIDERING TO JUST STOP and SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

Thus WHY this one is SO Wrong, SO OFTEN. As it is AGAIN, here.

And, AGAIN, this one ATTEMPTS TO DEFLECT, WITHOUT EVER even just 'TRYING TO' back up and support its CLAIMS. And, it DOES THIS BECAUSE it can NOT back up and support its CLAIM, here, AT ALL.

KEEP 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT, here, "atla". 'you' ARE just SHOWING who and what 'you' REALLY ARE.

[promethean75]

You guys have got Age using almost all CAPS again so this means we are approaching an omega point.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tell me, Atla, what you discern to really be true and then, or also, what you want to be true? Does “wanting” enter in?

What I want is irrelevant here. To me, "philosophy" is just about coming up with the most likely truths, even if I hate what I find (which happens often).

Imo the best way to come up with the most likely truths is to look at the world in its totality (including all scientific knowledge that can be stated beyond reasonable doubt), and then come up with the simplest (Occam's razor) descriptions of the total known world, descriptions that are 100% internally consistent, coherent, account for everything. So that would be what is most likely really true.

I call the above 4D philosophy, I finished it some 10-15 years ago and then moved beyond it.

Naturally I respect your views. However I have been thinking about your statement and have a few thoughts. One is that when you say What I want is irrelevant, it may tend to mean that you, as perceiver, have come to rely on— and allow me to put it this way — on measuring devices that stand between yourself and *the world* that is there to be cooly analyzed. The individual — as perceiving instrument — goes neutral and relies on the instruments to provide the readings about *reality* — what is, what is not — and thus reduces epistemological concern to *readings* of temperature, mass, velocity etc etc.

What I find interesting here is that, and if what Blake alludes to has relevance and importance for the human being, then it could be said that on one level you have abdicated at least a certain level of responsibility toward and in relation to the Grand Questions. That is to say that taking your method as a practice, you as subjective instrument are put to the side. Trust me, it is not that I do not understand the value of this methodological choice since “subjectivity” in relation to understanding the material universe is a block.

But here is what I begin to think when I encounter people, like you, who have been trained up in existential methodology that comes out of the laboratory (if I may put it in such terms). If you as individual become irrelevant, and if your epistemological concerns are merely about *facts*, then in this sense you begin to mimic *the machine*. But here is the thing I would focus on: by veering away from subjective considerations, *you* (i.e. people who live in these ways) must lose contact with the inner self that is very concerned for the Grand Questions, and indeed finds itself within a realm that requires a fulsome interpretive effort.

Once the man has become merely a measuring machine, mimicking instrumentation, he will necessarily cease to rely on and be involved with his *inner self* his *inner person*. And a man who lives in this way becomes separated from himself and, perhaps, from other types of imperatives.

If for you philosophy is a mental exercise in intellectual statistics, I certainly accept your chosen orientation. But because I find it necessary to examine that choice from some distance and to try to understand the ramifications of such choices, you will better understand my essay at a critical analysis.

[BigMike]

It's self-explanatory why. Unfortunately due to a shocking cosmic coincidence, GOD is about as dull as the human he's possessing, Age. That's why GOD doesn't get the why, doesn't even understand the word "matters".

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is HAPPENING and OCCURRING, here, is you KEEP PROVING that you are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR back up and support YOUR CLAIM, here.

ALSO, you MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMING things, like you are, here, ONCE AGAIN, without EVER SEEKING OUT ACTUAL CLARIFICATION just SHOWS and REVEALS how you KEEP MAKING MISTAKES and False CLAIMS.

LOL This one does NOT even KNOW the WHY to what it CLAIMS.

This one CLAIMS that it 'matters'. YET, as it HAS SHOWN and REVEALED, it does NOT even KNOW WHY it, SUPPOSEDLY, 'matters'.

What REALLY MATTERS to human beings IS PROOF. YET, LOL, this one HAS ABSOLUTELY NONE, here.

Looks like GOD needs a better anger management therapy.

Ah, Atla, you have such a flair for colorful commentary, don’t you? But let’s take a moment to be pragmatic here, shall we? What Age might need isn’t anger management therapy—although, one could argue that might not hurt—but rather a thoughtful conversation with a trained professional, someone equipped to untangle whatever this… let’s call it enthusiasm… is about.

It’s not about mocking or dismissing; it’s about recognizing that sometimes, when communication starts to resemble a spiral of exclamation points and capitalization, it’s a sign to hit pause and seek guidance. A psychiatrist could help Age find clarity, maybe even a way to communicate that doesn’t leave everyone else scratching their heads or reaching for Advil.

And hey, if we’re lucky, maybe this whole cosmic misunderstanding with GOD could get sorted out too. Win-win, right?

[Atla]

LOL
LOL
LOL

What is HAPPENING and OCCURRING, here, is you KEEP PROVING that you are NOT ABLE TO CLARIFY NOR back up and support YOUR CLAIM, here.

ALSO, you MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMING things, like you are, here, ONCE AGAIN, without EVER SEEKING OUT ACTUAL CLARIFICATION just SHOWS and REVEALS how you KEEP MAKING MISTAKES and False CLAIMS.

LOL This one does NOT even KNOW the WHY to what it CLAIMS.

This one CLAIMS that it 'matters'. YET, as it HAS SHOWN and REVEALED, it does NOT even KNOW WHY it, SUPPOSEDLY, 'matters'.

What REALLY MATTERS to human beings IS PROOF. YET, LOL, this one HAS ABSOLUTELY NONE, here.

Looks like GOD needs a better anger management therapy.

Ah, Atla, you have such a flair for colorful commentary, don’t you? But let’s take a moment to be pragmatic here, shall we? What Age might need isn’t anger management therapy—although, one could argue that might not hurt—but rather a thoughtful conversation with a trained professional, someone equipped to untangle whatever this… let’s call it enthusiasm… is about.

It’s not about mocking or dismissing; it’s about recognizing that sometimes, when communication starts to resemble a spiral of exclamation points and capitalization, it’s a sign to hit pause and seek guidance. A psychiatrist could help Age find clarity, maybe even a way to communicate that doesn’t leave everyone else scratching their heads or reaching for Advil.

And hey, if we’re lucky, maybe this whole cosmic misunderstanding with GOD could get sorted out too. Win-win, right?

I mean Age literally thinks that he/she is the Universe-God's chosen one, the Universe-God is talking through him/her. Just like it is talking through all of us, and all humans share the same one mind, we are just too dumb to realize what the chosen one has already realized. Believe me, Age can't be talked out of this by a psychiatrist.

[Atla]

Tell me, Atla, what you discern to really be true and then, or also, what you want to be true? Does “wanting” enter in?

What I want is irrelevant here. To me, "philosophy" is just about coming up with the most likely truths, even if I hate what I find (which happens often).

Imo the best way to come up with the most likely truths is to look at the world in its totality (including all scientific knowledge that can be stated beyond reasonable doubt), and then come up with the simplest (Occam's razor) descriptions of the total known world, descriptions that are 100% internally consistent, coherent, account for everything. So that would be what is most likely really true.

I call the above 4D philosophy, I finished it some 10-15 years ago and then moved beyond it.

Naturally I respect your views. However I have been thinking about your statement and have a few thoughts. One is that when you say What I want is irrelevant, it may tend to mean that you, as perceiver, have come to rely on— and allow me to put it this way — on measuring devices that stand between yourself and *the world* that is there to be cooly analyzed. The individual — as perceiving instrument — goes neutral and relies on the instruments to provide the readings about *reality* — what is, what is not — and thus reduces epistemological concern to *readings* of temperature, mass, velocity etc etc.

What I find interesting here is that, and if what Blake alludes to has relevance and importance for the human being, then it could be said that on one level you have abdicated at least a certain level of responsibility toward and in relation to the Grand Questions. That is to say that taking your method as a practice, you as subjective instrument are put to the side. Trust me, it is not that I do not understand the value of this methodological choice since “subjectivity” in relation to understanding the material universe is a block.

But here is what I begin to think when I encounter people, like you, who have been trained up in existential methodology that comes out of the laboratory (if I may put it in such terms). If you as individual become irrelevant, and if your epistemological concerns are merely about *facts*, then in this sense you begin to mimic *the machine*. But here is the thing I would focus on: by veering away from subjective considerations, *you* (i.e. people who live in these ways) must lose contact with the inner self that is very concerned for the Grand Questions, and indeed finds itself within a realm that requires a fulsome interpretive effort.

Once the man has become merely a measuring machine, mimicking instrumentation, he will necessarily cease to rely on and be involved with his *inner self* his *inner person*. And a man who lives in this way becomes separated from himself and, perhaps, from other types of imperatives.

If for you philosophy is a mental exercise in intellectual statistics, I certainly accept your chosen orientation. But because I find it necessary to examine that choice from some distance and to try to understand the ramifications of such choices, you will better understand my essay at a critical analysis.

I also have my subjective "personal philosophy" and maybe even spent more time on that one. I just don't see much point in discussing it (here).

But if our 4d world is deterministic, I won't come up with a personal philosophy that is incompatible with that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, you’ve waxed poetic about the “soul” or “mind” instructing the brain, as if that somehow excuses you from engaging with the fact-based, deterministic framework I’ve presented. But it doesn’t. If your soul is doing the thinking, before engaging the brain, maybe it’s time to let your brain step in—because whatever is driving your responses, it’s not clarity, logic, or rigor.

So here’s the deal: if you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Address the arguments, defend your position, or offer a coherent alternative. Otherwise, cut the theatrics. Your shtick isn’t as clever as you seem to think, and it’s wearing thinner by the post.

A few thoughts here …

One is that you hit a nail on the head when you say that the notion of *the soul* has been rendered *poetic*.

One of the effects of the new rationalism and the rise of a material science (back in the 17th century) was to confront and challenge all representations of views of *reality* that could not be verified by evidence and through experiment. One of the effects of this was that rational men, enthused by a new methodology of analysis, had to confront what had been described in theology as the non-material soul. What was the connecting point between a non-material entity and the material being and the material world?

Connected to the enthusiasm for this new method was the necessary rejection of a great deal of *poetic allusion*. The truths of poetry, or those expressed in artful use of language, symbolism and allusion, fell into disrepute. Direct statements, in clear prose and in careful precise language, came to be seen as more favorable for the revelation of what was a New Knowledge, a new means of arriving at what is *true*.

The reason I say this is because in the course of this conversation my object is not so much to refute the basis of your physiological assertions, but moreover to *locate* you within the course of intellectual evolution of thought. This is the reason I refer to you as *reductionist*. And also why I cannot help but notice all that you must exclude from the table of the considerable. I know, I know, you will find what I am referring to here in your typical terms of sheer contempt. But that is not my problem.

It is not that I dismiss your *fact-based deterministic framework*. Actually I work within it but with a caveat. I have stated that I think you operate within reductive concepts and that your object is to take “agency” and “volition” away from man. Here I cannot and I do not believe I ever will go along with you. I do not think that you understand the sound reasons for my opposition (and that of many on this forum who oppose aspects of your ideology).

I did not say, actually, that the soul instructs the brain. Because I understand and agree that the instrument of the brain is fundamental and necessary to cognition. And the fact of the matter is that I have no way to demonstrate nor to prove that such a thing as a *soul* exists. So I grant you (and those with your objectives) the right not to consider as real, in any sense, such a factor as the soul’s existence. Understood from the materialist’s and the scientist’s platform, the mention of the soul cannot be considered. It cannot be relevant to the material sciences and, I suppose, to those who study the brain.

If your soul is doing the thinking, before engaging the brain, maybe it’s time to let your brain step in—because whatever is driving your responses, it’s not clarity, logic, or rigor.

The problem as I see it with this formulation, and so much of your formula that you work with, centers around all that it necessarily denies in *human experience* in the realm of life. That is why I refer to epistemological systems and the conflict between them. And also to *truth claims* and the intellectual basis for them.

What I do not think that you understand is not that I do not grasp that a science-based worldview has collapsed and undermined an entire order of seeing and explaining *the world* and manifest reality, I certainly do, but that I notice that this Scientism has itself become infused with a religious conviction in regards to the order of view and understanding that it posits.

I see you as a shining example of a man who has been *captured* by these certainties. I can only really tell you that, as I understand things, and also in my reading of people with different orders of idea and interpretation, that I do not believe everything to be as settled as you desire, with such adamancy, to portray it.

…if you have something meaningful to say, then say it.

But in your case, BigMike, you must understand that what is *meaningful* to you must conform to your schema, to your scaffolding. Any allusion, on any level, that deviates from your schema is by definition meaningless!

The real core of the issues we are discussing has very much to do with— and here I tell you my subjective position as an individual — what, and where, I will place my *trust*. Honestly this is what it revolves around. Let me say this: I do not trust you. Don’t take it as a personal thing, it is not.The platform you describe, your tendency to intellectual tyranny, your overblown authoritarian attitude, your dismissiveness of other modes of knowing, and also your (as I understand it) twisted notions in regard to revamping education and the engineering of a new man who sees the manifest word as you do and conforms to your schema, does not in any sense inspire trust! Could I fairly say that you are *half-mad*? I might, but you’d have to grasp that I consider so much going on in the intellectual world as manifestations of mental dis-ease.

So I have a very different way of looking at *you*, what you say, and where you are coming from. I am fairly certain that not only do you not understand my concerns but that given your adamant predicates that you cannot!

Go in peace, my child.