User Tag List

View Poll Results: Ni Dom Users: Which best describes your beliefs about God?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTJ: I believe there is a God

    8 14.29%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a >50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    1 1.79%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a 50-50 chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    3 5.36%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a <50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    5 8.93%
  • INTJ: I believe there is no God

    15 26.79%
  • INFJ: I believe there is a God

    9 16.07%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a >50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    2 3.57%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a 50-50 chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    4 7.14%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a <50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    5 8.93%
  • INFJ: I believe there is no God

    4 7.14%
First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 140

  1. #111
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Are all things that are theoretically possible but neither provable nor falsifiable 50% likely to be true?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #112
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Are all things that are theoretically possible but neither provable nor falsifiable 50% likely to be true?
    Not necessarily.

  3. #113
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But, also as I said before, you are discounting the value of emotion, overstating the power of of our rational faculties, and discounting all sorts of reasonable possibilities to which you have closed yourself off under the guise of what you call "reason".
    I made it very clear that I believe emotions have their place; my assertion is simply that emotions cannot tell us anything real about the universe we inhabit. Emotions are the subjective responses that well up in response to objective situations and phenomenon; "Feeling", in the Jungian model, is to devote one's libido (free psychological energy) to these subjective responses rather than to the objective facts and phenomenon to which they act in response.

    If we're to allow that emotions tell us something real about the universe, we must accept that "I feel A is true, therefore A is true" is a valid method of argument. In other words, we must accept "I feel A is true" as a sound premise. This isn't a word-bauble or linguistic trap you can set aside if you find it uncongenial; the simple fact of the matter is that all sound argument is based upon (a) sound premises and (b) logical reasoning, so that if we're to allow that emotions tell us something real of the universe, we must allow that "I feel A is true" is a sound premise.

    To make my stance as clear as possible, my premises are as follows:

    - emotions are the subjective responses which occur naturally in response to objective situations and phenomenon. (For example, when confronted with a sunset, the objective phenomenon are of the sun dipping beneath the horizon, its rays dispersed by the atmosphere. Awe is the subjective response to these phenomenon)
    - emotional responses, as subjective responses to objective phenomenon, cannot tell us anything about the empirical world of phenomenon which we inhabit
    - in accordance with the Jungian system, a preference for "Feeling" is a semi-conscious preference to focus on these subjective responses rather than the objective phenomenon in which they serve as responses to
    - these two preferences are mutually exclusive

    Further, I will define "rational faculties" as the psychological faculties responsible for "Thinking" in the Jungian sense: a tendency to concern oneself with the objective phenomenon, rather than the subjective emotional reactions these phenomenon elicit

    Therefore: a preference for "Feeling", e.g. a preference to focus on the subjective responses to objective phenomenon, is to the exclusion of the development of the rational faculties.

    If you disagree with any of my premises, you're welcome to demonstrate how they are mistaken by submitting your own premises and conclusions. This is not what you've done. In fact, you're correct in one respect: you're not presenting an argument at all -- you're dismissing argument entirely, and objecting to the very fact that I have an argument.

    It's been my observation that for those who've not developed their rational faculties, an argument will always seem like a Rube Goldberg device set atop a table, the machinations of which they can applaud or disparage on the basis of their emotional response.

    Edit, to make myself perfectly clear: if you can't be bothered to demonstrate clearly your premises and to outline clearly your logic, this conversation can go nowhere; no arguments will be refined, nothing will be learned, and it will remain the pointless competitive quibbling it's been thus far. (Admittedly, as all I'm doing is reiterating at this point, I probably should have let this go sooner.) Demonstrate your premises and logic, and I'll comment upon them accordingly; otherwise, we've wasted enough of one another's time.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #114
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If we're to allow that emotions tell us something real about the universe, we must accept that "I feel A is true, therefore A is true" is a valid method of argument. In other words, we must accept "I feel A is true" as a sound premise. This isn't a word-bauble or linguistic trap you can set aside if you find it uncongenial; the simple fact of the matter is that all sound argument is based upon (a) sound premises and (b) logical reasoning, so that if we're to allow that emotions tell us something real of the universe, we must allow that "I feel A is true" is a sound premise.
    I already gave a very clear response to this line of argumentation.

    It was that "If I feel A is true, it might be true".

    Certain things simply lie outside of empirical verifiability or falsifiability.

    You seem to have conveniently ignored this, as it doesn't fit into your model, and apparently you don't want it mucking things up for you.

    (note: it mucking up your model does not make it any less of an appropriate response.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    To make my stance as clear as possible, my premises are as follows:

    - emotions are the subjective responses which occur naturally in response to objective situations and phenomenon. (For example, when confronted with a sunset, the objective phenomenon are of the sun dipping beneath the horizon, its rays dispersed by the atmosphere. Awe is the subjective response to these phenomenon)
    - emotional responses, as subjective responses to objective phenomenon, cannot tell us anything about the empirical world of phenomenon which we inhabit
    - in accordance with the Jungian system, a preference for "Feeling" is a semi-conscious preference to focus on these subjective responses rather than the objective phenomenon in which they serve as responses to
    - these two preferences are mutually exclusive
    With regards to the bolded:

    1. As I have already clearly stated before (you know, I suppose I have been making more of an argument than I gave myself credit for ), emotional responses can tell us how something makes us feel. How is this not telling us anything about the empirical world? Once again, this is probably going to muck up your model, so you will now conveniently ignore it.

    2. I don't want to overestimate my understanding of what you're trying to say here, but my first intuition is to believe that this is too simplistic (and my first intuition tends to be right... how could that be, if it has not been empirically verified?!?!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If you disagree with any of my premises, you're welcome to demonstrate how they are mistaken by submitting your own premises and conclusions. This is not what you've done. In fact, you're correct in one respect: you're not presenting an argument at all -- you're dismissing argument entirely...
    Actually, as I said before, I've mostly been deconstructing your arguments, and revealing why they don't necessarily work.

    I need not submit my own premises in order to show that yours are mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    ...and objecting to the very fact that I have an argument.
    No, I'm not objecting to the fact that you have an argument.

    I'm simply objecting to its flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    It's been my observation that for those who've not developed their rational faculties, an argument will always seem like a Rube Goldberg device set atop a table, the machinations of which they can applaud or disparage on the basis of their emotional response.
    And it's been my observation that those who believe they've developed their rational faculties and eliminated all emotion or passion from their argumentation are often deluding themselves, and that, in reality, they have merely created a linguistic framework to justify their preconceived notions (axioms derived from emotions, passions, and other subjective causes), which they then hold onto for dear life, and hope that, in so doing, they can, as you put it, "withstand the vagaries of life".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Edit, to make myself perfectly clear: if you can't be bothered to demonstrate clearly your premises and to outline clearly your logic, this conversation can go nowhere; no arguments will be refined, nothing will be learned, and it will remain the pointless competitive quibbling it's been thus far. (Admittedly, as all I'm doing is reiterating at this point, I probably should have let this go sooner.) Demonstrate your premises and logic, and I'll comment upon them accordingly; otherwise, we've wasted enough of one another's time.
    My premise is that sound first principles or definitions are impossible to arrive at with any certainty, and that anybody claiming to do so, particularly via their vaunted "reason", is actually just cloaking their preconceived notions and beliefs (which are, in actuality, subjectively drawn from their emotions) under the false guise of said "reason".

    Based on this premise, I was led to the conclusion that your ignorant original claim (which can be found here), was not based off of "reason", but off your own preconceived subjective biases, and that, as such, is not only as subject to your subjective biases as the opinions of those you have chosen to write off, but is so in an extremely arrogant, dismissive and narrow-minded way.

    After that, I have clearly stated to you on multiple occasions that I felt you were overvaluing reason, undervaluing emotion, experience, and intuition, and that the only truly rational position to take on the question of the Divine is that of the flip of a coin, as any other conclusion is purely the result of one's preconceived biases which drive any "reasoning" that takes place after the conclusion has already been predetermined.

    Last edited by Zarathustra; 05-12-2010 at 09:47 PM.

  5. #115
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I already gave a very clear response to this line of argumentation.

    It was that "If I feel A is true, it might be true".
    Here you are using the term "feel" to mean "intuit", a very different definition from the one I subscribe to and outlined earlier, for the sake of clarity.

    You are correct that we can intuit truth, but once this truth has been arrived at, it will be possible and necessary to demonstrate its truth through empirical means. Again, the ability to intuit an objective phenomenon has no impact on reality; we simply used the method of intuition to arrive at an objective truth that, once arrived at, can be demonstrated empirically.

    Certain things simply lie outside of empirical verifiability or falsifiability.
    Perhaps, but the point is that we will never experience these things. What spiritualists posit as "evidence" are vague intuitions and emotional responses on the basis of the empirical, as filtered through the senses and the psychological apparatus. All contents of the mind have, at their root, sensory observations derived in this manner. In other words, what lies outside the experience of reality possible to us is irrelevant: it is now and forever completely outside the realm of our experience, which is to say that any claims to have experienced it in any fashion are untenable.

    That said, as pointed out by Kant, time and space, by which all objects are differentiated from one another, exist only for us within this empirical realm. For that reason, reality at its highest level must be undifferentiated.

    In simpler terms: if any object is limited in any fashion, it is finite. Any object which is finite must adhere within something as, by definition, reality cannot be suspended within non-reality. So long as finite objects exist, they must adhere within reality, which brings us to the problem of infinite regress: if God has no form of existence within our empirical reality; that is to say, if God stands outside our empirical reality and is, consequently, finite, what created the ultimate reality within which these two (at least) objects (God and our empirical universe) adhere?

    We can say that God is reality, but if God and reality are one and the same, but then the term "God" becomes redundant as the term "reality" is already perfectly appropriate.

    1. As I have already clearly stated before (you know, I suppose I have been making more of an argument than I gave myself credit for ), emotional responses can tell us how something makes us feel. How is this not telling us anything about the empirical world? Once again, this is probably going to muck up your model, so you will now conveniently ignore it.
    Please read Night's posts, which I've linked. It will take you all of five minutes.

    2. I don't want to overestimate my understanding of what you're trying to say here, but my first intuition is to believe that this is too simplistic (and my first intuition tends to be right... how could that be?!?!)
    As Schopenhauer points out, all accurate arguments are, ultimately, tautologies. Argument can only point the way to observed truth to those prepared to see it. Once seen, it's the simplest thing in the world.

    Actually, as I said before, I've mostly been deconstructing your arguments, and revealing where, why and how they don't necessarily work.

    I need not submit my own premises in order to show that yours are mistaken.
    If you'd like to pursue a discussion in the proper spirit of debate, it's beneficial to demonstrate how the premises could be altered to bring them closer in line with the truth, rather than snidely dismissing them.

    And it's been my observation that those who believe they've developed their rational faculties and eliminated all emotion or passion from their argumentation are often deluding themselves, and that, in reality, they have merely created a linguistic framework to justify their preconceived notions (axioms derived from emotions, passions, and other subjective causes), which they then hold onto for dear life and hope, in doing so, that they can, as you put it, "withstand the vagaries of life".
    Emotion provides impetus; I develop my arguments because I find it satisfying to do so. The reason I develop my arguments is irrelevant to whether or not my premises and logic are sound. This is, again, something people with poorly developed rational faculties fail to recognize.

    My premise is that sound first principles or definitions...
    I've made it extremely clear that I don't believe reason is the only faculty required to lead a satisfying life. I've stressed that reason is the faculty concerned with objective phenomenon and, consequently, the only method available to us to arrive at any truthful conclusions about reality, as it is presented to us. In short, considering our emotions can tell us how we feel about reality, but only dedicating our psychological energy to the consideration of the objective phenomenon which elicit these emotions ("Thinking", in the Jungian model) can tell us anything about those phenomenon.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  6. #116
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    This reminds me of Sphere by Michael Crichton. The book tells of how relying either solely on emotion or solely on rationality can drive a person mad - and that facing one's inner demons, despite what our natural inclinations are, can nourish one's well-being.

    Using rationality as the sole means for constructing your world view will lead to your demise, as rationality is only one part of the beasts body. Underneath our rational constructs, our models by which we understand reality and derive reason for action, bristles an irrational being. A being that craves sustenance and gives us the will to live and progress. There is no sole reason for being, as every man is a end unto himself, and thus compels himself to seek reason. Some men are like snakes that try to devour their own tails in a quest for reason, unknowing that doing so will lead to their own demise. Just accept your snakehood. Accept your God. Accept yourself. Whatever will give you the drive to be so. For what reason is there for existing? Sometimes, God is simply the feeling people get when their minds have been blown away by the thought of even existing. I would posit that, perhaps this is a result of our predispositions to seek parents. But of course, my reasoning is induced. But the phrase "our heavenly father" is just a give away to me.

    I think what Z is trying to say could be paralleled by saying that, just because inductive reasoning is inductive, doesn't mean that it's false. Knowing ones own emotions, gut, or intuition and using it as a compass to navigate reality could be inductive in this sense. It is not inherently false. It just has yet to be falsified or verified.

    Theoretically, one could guide oneself on intuition, gut, libido, "truthiness" as Colbert calls it, and still be correct in all of his assertions. As long as he is also proven correct, there is no reason for truthiness to be demonized unless it is false. But what God can be falsified? Logically, a god that is both finite and temporal, that does not intervene in the universe in a way that contradicts natural law, could exist. When I say "god", I mean a conscious creator of the universe. A Deistic god.

  7. #117
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Unfortunately, my computer seems to have come down with a virus last night, so I cannot properly respond to you, Mycroft.

    I will, however, say that you did not at all properly respond to my last three paragraphs, let alone almost my entire post.

    Good post, Tater.

  8. #118
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Ok, finished my report.

    Well, mostly.

    Back to the convo (previously) at hand.

    Having given you some time to ponder over it (realize I did not use "think" on purpose), Mycroft, I wonder if you've yet considered the possibility that you have an underdeveloped F function.

    I say this because it's an unhealthy sign for you to say what you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    A psychological preoccupation with emotional responses to the exclusion of the development of one's rational faculties results in a disheveled mind and a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality. Admitting to oneself a disheveled mind and a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality is uncongenial; we all fancy ourselves well-rounded. It's more pleasing to label the resultant psychological miasma that accompanies poorly developed rational faculties as "spirituality" and to label the mystery that reality appears to be as a result of a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality "that which man cannot, in his miserableness and limitation, possibly comprehend" and be done with it.
    To not only be closed to the idea of the Divine, but to blame belief in it on a defunct T function and an overabundance of F is purely absurd.

    If you were to call me irrational, the people who know me would laugh at you.

    Yet I'm able to entertain the notion, and I don't make snide remarks about Fs because I can't...

    The fact that you would try to defend yourself from this accusation during that whole argument, may be a sign that you are unhealthy.

    Just food for thought. Nothing personal.

    Just looking at the facts.

    You know: objectively.


  9. #119
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Things you seem to have failed to consider:

    Perhaps development of all of one's functions, including one's F function, is important to see the "bigger picture".

    Perhaps, if you only develop your T function at the expense of your F function, you lose sight of the truth -- are blind to an aspect of it.

    And perhaps you're just an arrogant prick with an undeveloped F function with a lack of imagination and a somewhat depressant view of life.

    But hell, maybe we're both wrong.


  10. #120
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Oh, as for the other matters you seem to have forgotten to consider:

    Perhaps there are diminishing marginal returns to using a function.

    Perhaps those returns even turn negative at some point of use (maybe around 70%-80%, let's say).

    If this notion were to be true, which, well, seems to be a general rule for most everything around us -- economics, physics, exercise, nutrition, thinking, feeling, et many fucking al -- then your argument would be pathetic and weak.

    I'll remember some more...

    Had a couple weeks to think about it.

    There are a few more back there.

    Promise...


Similar Threads

  1. Si doms, what are your thoughts on God?
    By Snuggletron in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 01:45 PM
  2. [NT] NTs what are your thoughts on this image?
    By SUPER in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 01:09 AM
  3. NFs what are your thoughts on this image?
    By SUPER in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 12:55 PM
  4. [SJ] SJs, what are your thoughts on the other types?
    By Dali in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 05:29 PM
  5. Has anyone heard of Global Dimming and if so what are your thoughts on it??
    By ladypinkington in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 06:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO