Again, as I said, under your definition of absolute, which is that
reality is absolute, I agree with your disapproval of my belief in
absolute morality since morality is of a different quality than
reality.
We are not connecting entirely on these points. I have in fact claimed
explicitly that nothing is “absolute”. I also said in my previous
post:
Also, I’ve actually argued that nothing is absolute for a specific
meaning of absolute, so I’m not inclined to now argue that physical
reality is absolute.
So I’m surprised that this point did not come across.
To clarify, I am saying that physical reality appears to be the common
context that everything shares within our universe. This context
however only has meaning at a specific level of abstraction, the
physical level. There are other levels of abstraction (contexts) for
which reality has no meaning, just as there are contexts for which
morality has no meaning.
Our physical reality appears to be the common context that
everything shares within our universe.
Your definition of absolute is plausible, but I do not share it. I
think that mental phenomena exist independently from the physical
world.
This is not the definition of absolute that I have been working with.
I will restate it. Something that is “absolute” has meaning in all
contexts. I don’t think physical reality qualifies. If you reread my
previous comments with that in mind we might come closer to a common
understanding of this conversation.
What makes me believe it? If I believe that mental phenomena vanish
without the natural world, I could equally believe that the natural
phenomena vanish without my mind (or “mental world”). To believe
that one provides the context for the other is, I believe, an
arbitrary choice. Therefore, I believe in their independent
existence.
This is interesting, lets split this out to a new thread, I’ll post
a specific reply later.
For many people, the God hypothesis is more than just to believe
that the universe is created by some distant creator who does
nothing else. God also intervenes into the world.
My argument holds for that case as well.
So it is possible to test God’s existence empirically.
For this to be done, the God hypothesis will need to be updated to
make specific predictions and to exclude alternate explanations. As
it stands the current hypothesis can’t be tested scientifically.
And for many Christians, this is apparently happening. Spend enough
time with them, and they will tell you fantastic stories.
I have spent that time and I am familiar with the stories. However,
attribution of specific outcomes to God in retrospect falls prey to
the argument that I made. For example I can attribute the same
outcomes to Frud.
Given that I experience God or anything supernatural empirically and I can reasonably exclude that I am suffering from hallucinations, then it is more probable for me to believe that the phenomena was supernatural rather than an improbable quantum mechanical phenonemon. Maybe what I call God is actually Frud. Maybe God “is a tuna sandwich I once made that had a special property, it created the universe, past and future.” I don’t expect to realise all of God’s properties from a single experience.
Predictive power is not always required. Historians have quite a problem predicting things based on what they read on Caesar. You can’t thus say that there are no historical facts (fact as factual as in “objective” news reporting).
You point out a context that does not require predictive power, but you have not shown that this context is equivalent to testing for God’s existence empirically. Without a common context, your example is irrelevant to the issue.
I don’t get you. What is your understanding of “testing for God’s existence empirically?”
Well draq, I’m removing myself from all threads of our conversation
both current and proposed. I don’t see enough benefit for me to go on.
I can’t be sure that you read my comments with enough care for you to
understand and appropriately respond. You missed points that I made
repeatedly and explicitly.
I’ve pulled apart several of your ideas and demonstrated their
problems. You didn’t responded directly to my claims, you didn’t
show flaws in my reasoning. Generally in debate this means you
conceded the point.
You seldom answered my direct questions. This made it very difficult
for me to understand your point of view.
Instead your responses were indirect and included new claims or
questions. These responses lead away from the topic at hand. You
appeared to avoid any conversation that would actually shed light on
your beliefs and allow them to be sorted into true/useful or
false/harmful.
From our conversation and your other comments I have concluded that
you generally aren’t distinguishing between stories and reality, and
are resistant to doing so. This gives me low confidence in your
ability to come to sound conclusions.
We are not connecting entirely on these points. I have in fact claimed explicitly that nothing is “absolute”. I also said in my previous post:
So I’m surprised that this point did not come across.
To clarify, I am saying that physical reality appears to be the common context that everything shares within our universe. This context however only has meaning at a specific level of abstraction, the physical level. There are other levels of abstraction (contexts) for which reality has no meaning, just as there are contexts for which morality has no meaning.
This is not the definition of absolute that I have been working with. I will restate it. Something that is “absolute” has meaning in all contexts. I don’t think physical reality qualifies. If you reread my previous comments with that in mind we might come closer to a common understanding of this conversation.
This is interesting, lets split this out to a new thread, I’ll post a specific reply later.
My argument holds for that case as well.
For this to be done, the God hypothesis will need to be updated to make specific predictions and to exclude alternate explanations. As it stands the current hypothesis can’t be tested scientifically.
I have spent that time and I am familiar with the stories. However, attribution of specific outcomes to God in retrospect falls prey to the argument that I made. For example I can attribute the same outcomes to Frud.
What I meant to say is “morality is absolute as reality.” I hope that clears everything.
Given that I experience God or anything supernatural empirically and I can reasonably exclude that I am suffering from hallucinations, then it is more probable for me to believe that the phenomena was supernatural rather than an improbable quantum mechanical phenonemon. Maybe what I call God is actually Frud. Maybe God “is a tuna sandwich I once made that had a special property, it created the universe, past and future.” I don’t expect to realise all of God’s properties from a single experience.
I don’t get you. What is your understanding of “testing for God’s existence empirically?”
Well draq, I’m removing myself from all threads of our conversation both current and proposed. I don’t see enough benefit for me to go on.
I can’t be sure that you read my comments with enough care for you to understand and appropriately respond. You missed points that I made repeatedly and explicitly.
I’ve pulled apart several of your ideas and demonstrated their problems. You didn’t responded directly to my claims, you didn’t show flaws in my reasoning. Generally in debate this means you conceded the point.
You seldom answered my direct questions. This made it very difficult for me to understand your point of view.
Instead your responses were indirect and included new claims or questions. These responses lead away from the topic at hand. You appeared to avoid any conversation that would actually shed light on your beliefs and allow them to be sorted into true/useful or false/harmful.
From our conversation and your other comments I have concluded that you generally aren’t distinguishing between stories and reality, and are resistant to doing so. This gives me low confidence in your ability to come to sound conclusions.