• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[INFJ] INFJ and divorce from reality?

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
But this is not about belief, it is about direct experience. The atheist in my example experiences something being there, without being able to explain it through reason. The belief, or faith, essentially goes down to having trust in this "presence", that it will continue to be there, as it has been in the past; to rely on it, even if there's no way to prove that it will continue to manifest itself. .

I do not see why the emotions you have experienced at that moment cannot be analyzed. The bottom line is you're experiencing something that you do not understand. No need to mythologize about it. Just leave it at that.


No, I didn't mean it would support Christianity either, I'm trying to get down to the essence of religion. .

I have defined religion earlier in this thread.

The essence is a set of dictates that one ought not to question under no circumstances. These dictates instruct the individual on metaphysics, eschatology and ethics very comprehensively.

You wouldn't have a problem with such an experience, then? Wouldn't it collide a little with your atheism or your rational worldview? What is spirituality to you, if I may ask?.

Where is the conflict between the two?



Do you mean that Dostoyevsky's allegiance with Christianity is itself a superstition? ?.

Yes, and more so how devout he was and the specific aspects of his creed, both religious and political that were very superstitious.


They usually put the highest emphasis on personal experience though, and this is where I give them the most credit. I have heard far more than enough accounts of people being miraculously healed, having their prayers answered over and over again, literally having their lives saved by some great spiritual experience (where they saw Jesus), to be sure that at least some of them must be true (not to talk about such things as near-death-/out-of-the-body-experiences, past-life-regression, ghosts etc). Of course it's also cultural, a muslim would not see Jesus for example, but still... my point is that there are lots of religious people who are T, NT even, who find obvious proof for their faith. Not to mention how many those must have been in the past.?.

Personal experience can be analyzed logically. In most cases they experience powerful sentiments that they mistake for real life occurences. As I said earlier, it would have been better to just leave things be that they cant explain clearly.


You think there's a great difference between spirituality and religion, is that right? Religion as a kind of distortion of spirituality? It is a distinction I have made myself, even if I haven't been so careful with it lately.

Correct.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Or are you misusing the label "fundamentalist" for orthodox Christians?

No, fundamentalist religion is the only true kind of religion. Everything else is a distortion.

BTW, the works of Kierkegaard and Tillich have been influential within conventional Christian traditions. In regards to Catholicism, two influential modern thinkers - von Balthasar and Pope John Paul II - held Kierkegaard in high regard.

Irrelevant anecdote.




As far as Christianity is concerned that's a difficult position to hold since the faith grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. In our other discussion, I've also made mention of the first century Christian text that called literalists dupes of the Devil. Let's not forget that many of the Church Fathers rejected a literalist approach, especially St. Augustine of Hippo.

I really don't see the relevance. Mere anecdote.

Religious people who do critical thinking are being irreligious.



The life of faith in itself is about overcoming internal conflicts, so I fail to understand your point here.

You're confusing appearance for essence. It leads to inner conflict for reasons described above, but only says that it is all about overcoming the inner conflict.









Well for one thing, providing a little balance and wider context to your treatments, since they seem to be incomplete on many levels.

Or they only feel so to you, more anecdotes please.

QUOTE=Peguy;322470]I'll also take the oppurtunity to correct your treatment of Kierkegaard. You claimed he was apolitical, when in fact he was a staunch supporter of Denmark's absolutist monarchy. One of his first writings was a pamphlet against female suffrage.[/QUOTE]


We don't find this in his religious and what he called 'philosophical' works. That just is not relevant because his biography holds no place in a philosophical or theological discussion.
 

sleepless

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
81
MBTI Type
INFJ
I have defined religion earlier in this thread.

The essence is a set of dictates that one ought not to question under no circumstances. These dictates instruct the individual on metaphysics, eschatology and ethics very comprehensively.
This is a very narrow definition, and very unpractical as few people see it the same way. I don't know if one single religious person in the world would agree that this is the essence of their religiousity. The fact that "religion" and "spirituality" are by many seen as closely linked makes a clear definition even harder.

Anyway, this was not our discussion. I suggest we leave out the words religion/spirituality, it is just becoming confusing. Our main discussion seems to be more about theism/atheism; whether it can be rational to be a theist, and my stance is that it can, even if Thinking doesn't usually lead the way.

BlueWing said:
I do not see why the emotions you have experienced at that moment cannot be analyzed. The bottom line is you're experiencing something that you do not understand. No need to mythologize about it. Just leave it at that.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/8498-infj-divorce-reality-3.html#post320560

If you return to my example with the atheist who become a theist, you will see that s/he doesn't mythologize at all. Suppose that everyone's an atheist at the time/place, and you go through the process as I described it. First you analyze the experience (and it doesn't have to be "emotion" exactly) like in the example, but you fail to understand it, and later you surrender to it during a life crisis, which obviously makes you feel much better. For the sake of practicality you give it a name - "God" - and since it adds a whole new quality to your life, you keep holding on to it, having faith in it.

Now, what is irrational with this? It is not based on Thinking, but on experience, and this is what I think most theists most of all rely on.


Personal experience can be analyzed logically. In most cases they experience powerful sentiments that they mistake for real life occurences. As I said earlier, it would have been better to just leave things be that they cant explain clearly.
Of course you can simply reject these things if you want to, choose to think that there are logical explanations for everything (seems like a dogma to me), and I can only repeat myself: people are being miraculously healed, having religious/spiritual experiences that changes their lives completely, hearing a voice in their heads accurately predicting the future, etc. Sometimes experience is just experience. There is a dimension of life that cannot be reached through logic, and that is nothing I can logically prove or argue for.


Peguy,

"anecdote" or not, you have some good points there. ;)
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
This is a very narrow definition,;)

It aspired to define the way religion is used in our language. Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Judaism are representations of religion. I have defined such an essence.

To ensure greatest precision in thought possible, definitions must be narrow. Otherwise we run the risk of commiting the informal logical fallacy of equivocation, or assinging 2 or more incompatible meanings to one term.

and very unpractical as few people see it the same way.,;);)

It does not matter how people see it, it only matters what is true.

I don't know if one single religious person in the world would agree that this is the essence of their religiousity. The fact that "religion" and "spirituality" are by many seen as closely linked makes a clear definition even harder.;)

This is a mistake for the reasons I have advanced earlier.


Anyway, this was not our discussion. I suggest we leave out the words religion/spirituality, it is just becoming confusing. Our main discussion seems to be more about theism/atheism; whether it can be rational to be a theist, and my stance is that it can, even if Thinking doesn't usually lead the way..;)

If you are not analyzing logically, you do not have a reliable way of knowing what is rational. You may however embrace a rational choice by chance, yet given the myriad of possibilities of choices you may make, your chances are very slim.



If you return to my example with the atheist who become a theist, you will see that s/he doesn't mythologize at all...;)

Unless this thinker provides a sound argument for his theism (which noone has done so far), he is mythologizing. To mythologize means to utter false claims. Theism is false. Therefore whoever believes in theism mythologizes.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...8404-why-i-do-not-believe-god.html#post323367



Suppose that everyone's an atheist at the time/place, and you go through the process as I described it. First you analyze the experience (and it doesn't have to be "emotion" exactly) like in the example, but you fail to understand it, and later you surrender to it during a life crisis, which obviously makes you feel much better. For the sake of practicality you give it a name - "God" - and since it adds a whole new quality to your life, you keep holding on to it, having faith in it....;)

It may benefit you to believe in God, and it may seem rational in this regard. Yet the decision itself to believe in God is irrational as no sound argument has been made in favor of his existence. I submit however, that believing in God in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because false beliefs about the world tend to generate unrealistic expectations within us, which inevitably lead to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments.





Of course you can simply reject these things if you want to, choose to think that there are logical explanations for everything (seems like a dogma to me),....;)

It is not a dogma because a dogma by definition means retention of an idea without applying logical analysis to reconsider the position. To be dogmatic and to refuse to reconsider your position are synonymous expressions. If you establish an argument based on rationale, you are free to reconsider it. You can logically analyze the proposition of whether or not all things can be explained logically. Which I do indeed. Therefore, it is not a dogma.


and I can only repeat myself: people are being miraculously healed, having religious/spiritual experiences that changes their lives completely, hearing a voice in their heads accurately predicting the future, etc. Sometimes experience is just experience.),....;)


People, both theists and atheists, conventionally religious and conventionally irreligious have their lives changed for the better because of the benign spiritual experiences. Such experiences do not require religious superstition for legitimation.

There is a dimension of life that cannot be reached through logic, and that is nothing I can logically prove or argue for..),....;)

Whatever cannot be reached through logic is non-sense. Can you imagine a mathematical equation where we arrive at the correct answer, yet the explanation for how why we arrived there is mysteriously impossible to discover?
 

sleepless

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
81
MBTI Type
INFJ
First of all, you might want to delete all those ;) from the quotes in your previous post, I have no idea how you happened to put them there, but it looks kind of silly...

And it seems like we have a lot of problems with definitions here, actually. You seem to have very clear definitions of a lot of words you use, which can be a strength, but also a problem as most other people, including me, use the words more ”overall”. If I use a word in a more undefined way, and you in your answer give it a more narrow, specific meaning, then we have a problem. Partly a difference between Ni and Ti communication, I think? You always answer very ”Ti-ishly” - nothing strange due to your type – but in a sense it makes me feel like I can't reach you, that all the things I'm trying to communicate are being filtered through your Ti, which seems ”unfair” as some of them are much more N than T.

It does not matter how people see it, it only matters what is true.

In a discussion like this, it matters that people somehow stay with the more commonly accepted meanings of a term, even if this will make it somewhat more vague, to avoid misunderstandings. This usually works. The option is that both parts agree on a definition before the discussion. I think your own definition is lacking, even if I don't know exactly what my own definition would be (and would I agree on yours, then yeah, religion sounds quite horrible).




And I'm sure we could do a lot of work to define what it is to be ”rational”, and what a ”dogma” is, as it seems again that we use those words differently, but it doesn't interest me. This discussion is getting nowhere.


It may benefit you to believe in God, and it may seem rational in this regard. Yet the decision itself to believe in God is irrational as no sound argument has been made in favor of his existence.
Again, what I meant with ”belief” or ”faith” is the faith in that this which could be called ”God” will continue to manifest itself, and that you can rely on it, even if it's not 100% certain. To dare to trust ”God”, the way you trust the sun will rise the next morning even if you don't know. You haven't really understood my point: ”God” in the example is essentially a personal experience, not something to prove or disprove. So obviously, ”God”, or call it ”Presence” or ”Tao” or whatever, does exist for the person experiencing it.


Whatever cannot be reached through logic is non-sense. Can you imagine a mathematical equation where we arrive at the correct answer, yet the explanation for how why we arrived there is mysteriously impossible to discover?

(dissonance, do you really agree with this? :shock:)

Well then, I think our discussion here has reached its end. I have tried to argue that some things cannot be reached through logic, but only through experience, and here we disagree. From your – as I see it – very narrow way of looking at the world, it seems impossible to reach you with anything outside your perspective. You seem to have made up your mind anyway, so I don't see why I should go on.

Life is not a mathematical equation. It can be approached as one, and seeking only mathematical/logical answers, that is what you will find. But you're inevitable missing out on much.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
(dissonance, do you really agree with this? :shock:)

Hell yeah. If something doesn't have a logical explanation (and I can't think of my own), then I dismiss it as nonsense.

We live in a physical world. Every atom in our body is subject to physical laws. Our bodies are merely interactions between trillions/quadrillions (I don't actually know how many) of atoms. It's not like any of those atoms can choose not to follow physical laws. The whole world/universe is a giant computer simulation.

To think that there is something that makes the human mind unique is to delude yourself. We happen to specialize in a certain kind of information processing, just like every other animal.

"God" or whatever has no place in the physical system that is the universe. If God is not physical, how does he affect what is physical? If God is physical, then he has no more control than any other part of the universe, namely, zero.

If I wanted to, I could try to believe in something "greater" than what is physical, but I would just know I was lying to myself.

As an INFJ, I've seen people come up with many weird ideas of how the world works just to make themselves comfortable. It makes me sad; they're all delusional. I choose not to be.

When I was in preschool (I went to Jewish preschool), I wondered when the teachers were going to tell me God was fake just like the Tooth Fairy or Santa. It was so obviously the same logic. When it never happened, I learned something about human nature. It's easy to write off the Tooth Fairy because it's implausible, and even though the same logic applies to God, people don't care -- they just want to be comfortable in their fantasy land.
 

sleepless

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
81
MBTI Type
INFJ
Oh well, misunderstanding each other again, are we?

Whether or not nature works under strict mechanical laws, what I mean is that sometimes reason can analyze all it wants to, and... well, I just keep repeating myself. I think I have said the same thing on the whole forum lately. That sometimes "reasoning" really misses the point.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Oh well, misunderstanding each other again, are we?

Whether or not nature works under strict mechanical laws, what I mean is that sometimes reason can analyze all it wants to, and... well, I just keep repeating myself. I think I have said the same thing on the whole forum lately. That sometimes "reasoning" really misses the point.

Well, yeah. I mean, you have you use induction (N) and deduction (T). If your reasoning misses the point, you have to widen your scope with N.

But you asked me if I really agreed, and I said yes.
 

sleepless

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
81
MBTI Type
INFJ
The thing is, BlueWing seems to think everything should have its starting point in logic. All feelings, experience and everything whatsoever. And as feelings naturally don't fit into the square logic reasoning, they are deemed as (surprise) illogical and therefore irrelevant.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Logic doesn't do starting points. Logic works from starting points. N has to come up with those starting points. I know BW agrees with this.

But if logic deems a starting point inconsistent, it should be thrown away. That was essentially BW's point. If there is no logical explanation (as in, the starting point is inconsistent with itself), then the idea is nonsense.
 

sleepless

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
81
MBTI Type
INFJ
Whatever, maybe "starting point" isn't the word I should use, I don't know, but I think you see what I mean. He thinks that everything in world should be approached through logic/reasoning/thinking (I'm not using any strict definitions here).

Now I will be so insolent as to quote a spiritual text written by a pure INFJ, impossible to grasp through Ti.


Jiddu Krishnamurti said:
Knowledge Is Not Wisdom

In our search for knowledge, in our acquisitive desires, we are losing love, we are blunting the feeling for beauty, the sensitivity to cruelty; we are becoming more and more specialized and less and less integrated. Wisdom cannot be replaced by knowledge, and no amount of explanation, no accumulation of facts, will free man from suffering. Knowledge is necessary, science has its place; but if the mind and heart are suffocated by knowledge, and if the cause of suffering is explained away, life becomes vain and meaningless.…

Information, the knowledge of facts, though ever increasing, is by its very nature limited. Wisdom is infinite, it includes knowledge and the way of action; but we take hold of a branch and think it is the whole tree. Through the knowledge of the part, we can never realize the joy of the whole. Intellect can never lead to the whole, for it is only a segment, a part.

We have separated intellect from feeling, and have developed intellect at the expense of feeling. We are like a three-legged object with one leg much longer than the others, and we have no balance. We are trained to be intellectual; our education cultivates the intellect to be sharp, cunning, acquisitive, and so it plays the most important role in our life. Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; but there can be intelligence only when there is self-knowledge, the deep understanding of the total process of oneself.

Good night.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Blah that sounds like nonsense to me. Analysis can be applied to feeling as well -- I mean, yes, it's pointless to live all of life in the analysis frame (and no one does). But the analysis frame and the common human interaction frame are not in conflict. Spending time in one does not take away from the other. And you can make one overarching frame that can include both.

We are just people with feelings that have validity. It is up to analysis to decide how much validity they have, and how we should integrate those emotions into our actions.

(When I say frame, I mean set of assumptions, terms, and relations.)
 

DLGenesis

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
4
MBTI Type
INFJ
To SolitaryWalker

i appreciate your machiavellian knowledge,
u are akin to niccollo machiavelli in your reasoning (the prince)..
as such i really think when people answer you they are actually talking to themselves because of logical facts that they cannot understand inherently.

I believe we have much to discuss.

I have overcome the INFJs Divine madness and am developed in ALL areas FULLY.
What everyone has said in this Topic is inherently dogmatic because of personal experience.

BUT.. with you Solitary u seem to have absolute control on reality...
I can share with you GODs thoughts... just ask anything ;).
You are right about spirituality and religion but theres one fact i wish to enlighten you about.....


Jesus WAS the first in the INFJ way to reach god.. Because of this he Died for everyones sins but his own were above all else... (Typological path that only one man can reach himself)(GOD)

On the otherhand...
He has freed everyone from the tyranny that lies in man, because of this fact everyone is free from sin permanently..
Religion is merely Subjective and accounts for personal experiences ONLY in a schematic way that leads others to understand their own follies in order to progress spiritually..

Whats more is it doesnt jsut stop there..

Sprituality itself can be broken down fundamentally and pragmatically into a concievable and relative whole.

<----------- The black hole is the white as such. (Up and Down is the same thing but a parrallel inversion of itself)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; but there can be intelligence only when there is self-knowledge, the deep understanding of the total process of oneself."

and so, nothing is EVER invein, because GOD is invein

and thus everyone is infinitely free to think whatever they want

thats merely a fundamental dogma tho

as such

perfection is attainable

that very thought is what makes us human

without it we are invein

without it we are god
 
Last edited:

iwakar

crush the fences
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,877
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I can share with you GODs thoughts... just ask anything ;).
You are right about spirituality and religion but theres one fact i wish to enlighten you about.....

Talk about name-dropping. You got that kinda VIP room access?


Jesus WAS the first in the INFJ way to reach god.. Because of this he Died for everyones sins but his own were above all else...

I think I get what you're saying, but I could see many disliking this comparison for numerous reasons --myself included.

(Typological path that only one man can reach himself)(GOD)

On the otherhand...
He has freed everyone from the tyranny that lies in man, because of this fact everyone is free from sin permanently..
Religion is merely Subjective and accounts for personal experiences ONLY in a schematic way that leads others to understand their own follies in order to progress spiritually..

Tell that to religion and its adherents.

Whats more is it doesnt jsut stop there..

OMG! It's Billy Mays!

and so, nothing is EVER invein, because GOD is invein
without it we are invein

Do you mean "in vain"?

Carry on, sirs and ladies! ;)
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
Quite the intense thread! Did you guys ever veer off topic, wow! Some flagarent disregards to logic in this thread, that's for sure.

I agree with the initial argument about an extreme INFJ, doing the things described in the opening theses. With inference to the best explanation, those extreme things would manifest in the 100% I, N, F, and J, more readily. I'm an INFJ ambivert at almost 50% on my I, F, and J, and I'm in agreement about us pushing our Ti button as much as possible, to back up our leaps in logic.

The only thing I do take issue with throughout this entire thread is this by Solitarywalker:

"It may benefit you to believe in God, and it may seem rational in this regard. Yet the decision itself to believe in God is irrational as no sound argument has been made in favor of his existence. I submit however, that believing in God in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because false beliefs about the world tend to generate unrealistic expectations within us, which inevitably lead to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments."

So in effect what you're saying is that indifference is truth, as reality is only found in the natural world, and so morality is subjective. The foundation of such a statement is a flagrant error in logic as you are left with self-contradictory answers. You are essentially saying that humanity has a lock on truth, yet we all know that is false, because collectively, we are still riddled with injustice and evil? If we were all truth, we would not have injustice and evil, because we would all be acting in accordance and in harmony with each other, but we're not. The pursuit of absolute truth and absolute authority, comes from realizing the injustices of the world, and the apparent absence of truth, by not accepting the lack thereof. To say even, that logic is truth, is a lie. You can not infer an "ought" from an "is". Take Darwinism's role, the full extent of which has been the basis for purifying the gene pool, in the form of Eugenics. These weren't crazy illogical people, they were killing people they thought were impure and contaminating the gene pool, and doing what they were doing, because they thought they were right. It would be nice to airbrush out the role of such logic, from the evils of the world, but the evidence and proof here is simply a void. Your error in logic jumps from the page.

The ontological, cosmological, teleological, mathematical fine tuning of the universe, and the moral arguments carry more weight as premises and evidence, than your subjective opinion that belief in God is bad, because it'll make you feel bad, which is funny because that's based on "YOUR" feelings, not logic. In fact, the natural logical answer would be to deduce the arguments suggested, that the inference to the best explanation for why we are here, is in a search for what the uncaused first cause actually is. I submit to you that accepting that the world and universe is all there is, is the illogical and hopeless existential answer, fraught with more disappointment and more unhappiness than believing in a moral code you can't live up to.
 
Last edited:

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So in effect what you're saying is that indifference is truth, as reality is only found in the natural world, and so morality is subjective..

No, I did not mention morality. My point was that it is important to know the truth because knowledge of reality can be used to make our lives better.




The foundation of such a statement is a flagrant error in logic as you are left with self-contradictory answers. ..


I did not make such an argument, but one thing could be said about it, it is an invalid argument.

Premise 1: X is indifferent to the truth.
Premise 2: Reality is only objective.

Conclusion: Therefore morality is subjective.

Premises have nothing to do with each other, nor does the conclusion have anything to do with the premises. The premises do not entail the conclusion. It is possible for both premises to be true and for the conclusion to be false. So Bob could be indifferent to the truth. Reality could be only objective. Yet, this does not show that morality is subjective.

You are quite correct, this argument indeed does contain errors in reasoning.


You are essentially saying that humanity has a lock on truth, yet we all know that is false, because collectively, we are still riddled with injustice and evil?..

No, I did not say that.

Your argument has the following form.

Premise 1: It is false that people know the truth.

Conclusion: Humanity is beset by evil and injustice.


What I think you are saying is, if people knew the truth, they would know how to do away with injustice and evil. They did not do away with injustice and evil, therefore they dont know the truth.

Technically incorrect because it is possible to know how to do away with evil and fail to do what is necessary in order to abrogate evil.

This is relevant to my argument in the following regard, I argued that it is possible for us to know the truth. Once we ensure that we know the truth, it will be up to us to abrogate our problems.






To say even, that logic is truth, is a lie. ?..

I have no idea what you mean.

You can not infer an "ought" from an "is".?..

That is right. This is the famous naturalistic fallacy. It has been used to motivate the argument that what is natural is not the same as what is good. Some ethicists have argued that if we discover the most natural way to behave, we will have discovered the best way to behave. This is false.

Take Darwinism's role, the full extent of which has been the basis for purifying the gene pool, in the form of Eugenics. These weren't crazy illogical people, they were killing people they thought were impure and contaminating the gene pool, and doing what they were doing, because they thought they were right. It would be nice to airbrush out the role of such logic, from the evils of the world, but the evidence and proof here is simply a void. Your error in logic jumps from the page.".?..

:huh:

What you seem to be saying is, Darwinists did evil because they thought they were being logical. Some people do evil because they think they are being logical. Therefore some people should not be logical. Can you show that what the Darwinists did was evil and can you show that what they did, they did because they were being logical?



The ontological, cosmological, teleological, mathematical fine tuning of the universe, and the moral arguments carry more weight as premises and evidence,..".?..
t
than your subjective opinion that belief in God is bad, because it'll make you feel bad, which is funny because that's based on "YOUR" feelings, not logic..".?..

I am totally confused. What exactly is ontological here, or cosmological, and what exactly are the moral arguments about?

t
than your subjective opinion that belief in God is bad, because it'll make you feel bad, which is funny because that's based on "YOUR" feelings, not logic..".?..

What on Earth? How did you figure that?

How does the moral, cosmological, ontological, teleological entities (whatever they are) suggest that God exists, or that the existence of God is good?










In fact, the natural logical answer would be to deduce the arguments suggested, that the inference to the best explanation for why we are here, is in a search for what the uncaused first cause actually is...".?..


Certainly, what is the first cause?

I submit to you that accepting that the world and universe is all there is, is the illogical and hopeless existential answer, fraught with more disappointment and more unhappiness than believing in a moral code you can't live up to.

How?
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
Shocked you don't know the premises for the existence of God, Solitarywalker? To convince me of your paragraph, it makes WAY more sense if worded like this....

"A person may think it benefits them to believe in false gods, and it may seem rational to them at the time. Yet the decision itself to believe in false gods is irrational as false gods logically don't exist. I submit however, that believing in false gods in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because the beliefs from the false gods generate unrealistic expectations within us because they don't match up with the facts of reality, which inevitably leads to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments."

Correct. If that's what you meant, than I wholeheartedly agree and everything else here, is simply for the satisfaction of your curiosity.

The presupposition here is that the idea of God is somehow inconsistent with reality, when in fact God is completely consistent with reality. Only false god's that are made up and do not follow the facts of the universe, lead to what you are describing, so of course you will find false god's leading people to be deluded about reality. Correct. My argument is founded on the idea that God is the uncaused first cause, and therefore God is the truth ABOUT reality, and from God, everything follows logically and orderly, and the person would not be deluded at all but in a normal frame of mind.

Now the argument's for the existence of God, that I'm surprised you don't know:

The Ontological Argument:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

The Cosmological Argument:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

The Teleological Argument

1. All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed or contrived.
2. Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind or will.
3. All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception.
4. The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex.
5. Those things display intention and preconception.
6. Those things necessitate an intellect, mind or will.

The Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument:

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter and Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:protons 1:10 to the power of 37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the power of 40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the power of 55
Mass of Universe 1:10 to the power of 59
Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the power of 120

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. The possible answers are an intelligent uncaused first cause or a multiverse.


The Moral Argument

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist. (They are valid and binding whether or not anyone believes in them or not)
3. Therefore, God does exist.

I can go into the Historical Argument, but it's probably too contentious for any of you.

All of these arguments make inference to the best explanation and support normalcy not delusion, when believing in God.

To quickly answer your question, the full extent of Darwinism, led to the understanding of how to make humanity better through purifying the gene pool, which led to a holocaust. Seemingly logical things can be completely immoral, logical fallacies. I'm simply making the argument, that you can not infer an "ought" from an "is". I'm not putting forward any new philosophical argument.
 
Last edited:

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Shocked you don't know the premises for the existence of God, Solitarywalker? To convince me of your paragraph, it makes WAY more sense if worded like this.....

All of the arguments below have been famously refuted in the Critique of Pure Reason. Today, an overwhelming majority of metaphysicians and philosophers of religion regard those arguments as false for compelling reasons.

Advanced Search

"A person may think it benefits them to believe in false gods, and it may seem rational to them at the time. Yet the decision itself to believe in false gods is irrational as false gods logically don't exist. I submit however, that believing in false gods in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because the beliefs from the false gods generate unrealistic expectations within us because they don't match up with the facts of reality, which inevitably leads to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments.".....

Any belief in God amounts to a falsehood. Therefore it is undesirable for the reasons you mentioned.



"The presupposition here is that the idea of God is somehow inconsistent with reality, when in fact God is completely consistent with reality..".....


Oh, most-esteemed one! I certainly wish to know how that is the case !


"Only false god's that are made up and do not follow the facts of the universe, lead to what you are describing, so of course you will find false god's leading people to be deluded about reality. Correct. My argument is founded on the idea that God is the uncaused first cause, and therefore God is the truth ABOUT reality, and from God, everything follows logically and orderly, and the person would not be deluded at all but in a normal frame of mind. ..".....

How is God the first cause?



The Ontological Argument:


"1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined)...".....

God is defined as a being that is so great that it cannot be imagined. This amounts to saying that God is any entity so great that even the brightest of imaginations cannot conceive. On that note, any entity that is that difficult to imagine would be god. This could be the seemingly infinite cosmos, the fourth dimension, the sun, etc. In fact, the recent astrophysicists would tell us that there are many entities in our universe that are so great that they cannot be imagined completely. From the very little that we know of those entities, they are distinct from each other. That means that there is more than one entity that is so great that it cannot be imagined. Therefore they are many gods. What this has merely proved is that we should worship the cosmos as our deity and therefore has almost nothing to do with the vindication of the traditional theism propounded in the Old Testament.

2.
"God exists as an idea in the mind.)...".....

So does the square circle or a 5000 lb purple elephant. From this it does not follow that such entities exist in reality.

"3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind..)...".....

Some ideas exist both in the mind and can depict entities of reality. For example mathematics. The idea that there is a number such as 1000 exists in the mind and can also depict reality. For example, we can say that 1000 people have attended the concert. Some logical principles such as if A then B exist in the mind but can also be transferred to reality in the aforementioned ways. What can we learn from this? All of the above are logically coherent concepts, therefore they exist both in the mind and can exist in reality. God exists only in the mind because it is an incoherent concept. It cannot be used to describe anything of reality just like a false logical principle cannot, for example a contradictory proposition of logic.


"4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist)...)...".....

Watch what happens as an entailment of this proposition. Here it is assumed that God is an idea of the mind, a merely descriptive tool, exactly like a mathematical theorem. God is defined as simply an entity that is so great that even the brightest of imaginations cannot conceive of. Many entities therefore are to be regarded as God, as aforementioned. This does nothing to vindicate traditional theism.
"5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.))...)...".....
This says that there is a greatest being that we can imagine.
6.
"Therefore, God exists..))...)...".....
This also says that there is a greatest being we can imagine. Greatest being we can imagine is the same thing as God. The premise is identical with the conclusion. This argument is trivially valid, as it is not possible for the premise to be true and for the conclusion to be false as both carry the same truth values, yet the argument is unsound because the bare assertion fallacy is comitted. Or quite simply, the conclusion has no justification.

The Cosmological Argument:

.
"1. . "Every finite and contingent being has a cause...))...)...".....

Indeed

"2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself....))...)...".....

Granted.


"3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.....))...)...".....

Granted.
"4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist......))...)...".....

Granted. What is the first cause?

The Teleological Argument

"1. All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed or contrived.......))...)...".....

This proposition is making the same point twice. The definition of designed is intended, purposed or contrived.

"2. Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind or will........))...)...".....

Yes, it is not possible to design anything without an intellect.

"3. All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception.........))...)...".....

This argument is saying that if something is complex, it must have been designed. On what grounds?



"4. The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex..........))...)...".....

Granted.


"5. Those things display intention and preconception...........))...)...".....

They do not because we do not know if they were designed.



"6. Those things necessitate an intellect, mind or will............))...)...".....

This is false because we do not know if those things were designed.

The problem with this argument is that it asserts that all complex things must be designed, yet neglects to show why that is the case. It is for this reason unsound.

"The Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument:

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter and Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:protons 1:10 to the power of 37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the power of 40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the power of 55
Mass of Universe 1:10 to the power of 59
Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the power of 120

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. The possible answers are an intelligent uncaused first cause or a multiverse....

How do any of these numbers show that there was an intelligent designer?




"The Moral Argument

"[1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.....

What is an objective force? How is the objective force observed in morality?


"[2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives......

What is God? What does the belief in God have to do with morality?

"[3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives.......

This statement makes the same point as the previous.

"[I can go into the Historical Argument, but it's probably too contentious for any of you........

No, no, please do!


"[All of these arguments make inference to the best explanation and support normalcy not delusion, when believing in God.........

How?

"[To quickly answer your question, the full extent of Darwinism, led to the understanding of how to make humanity better through purifying the gene pool, which led to a holocaust..

Darwinist scientists may have discovered that the gene pool operations are possible. They made no ethical prescriptions, they merely depicted the nature of reality. Or quite simply stated that gene pool operations are possible and said nothing else besides that. They had nothing to do with holocaust. Holocaust is a result of the vagaries of Hitler's imagination. The Darwinists would have abhorred the practice.

"[Seemingly logical things can be completely immoral, logical fallacies. .

Okay.


"[I'm simply making the argument, that you can not infer an "ought" from an "is". I'm not putting forward any new philosophical argument.

What does this claim have to do with your previous claim?
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
Any belief in God amounts to a falsehood. Therefore it is undesirable for the reasons you mentioned.

False. Any belief in a false god. You've made a blanket statement, which is therefore false. Logical fallacy. I could just as easily make logical fallacies like, any belief in your experiences amounts to a falsehood. Therefore it is undesireable for the reasons you mentioned. You're infering that God is somehow incompatible with reality, which is false. How is that the case? If God created everything, he put everything in order, and therefore there is order and logic and meaning in reality. You would have the harder time arguing where order comes from based on the premise the universe is all that there is. I don't know why you can't infer the difference between intentionality and unintentionality.

God is defined as a being that is so great that it cannot be imagined. This amounts to saying that God is any entity so great that even the brightest of imaginations cannot conceive. On that note, any entity that is that difficult to imagine would be god. This could be the seemingly infinite cosmos, the fourth dimension, the sun, etc. In fact, the recent astrophysicists would tell us that there are many entities in our universe that are so great that they cannot be imagined completely. From the very little that we know of those entities, they are distinct from each other. That means that there is more than one entity that is so great that it cannot be imagined. Therefore they are many gods. What this has merely proved is that we should worship the cosmos as our deity and therefore has almost nothing to do with the vindication of the traditional theism propounded in the Old Testament.

Where does the infinite cosmos, 4th dimension, etc, infer logic or conscience? By definition those things you mention are less than the greatest thing that can be imagined. Conclusion and presupposition are false.

Ok, you really don't understand the ontological argument, and are adding things that don't add up again. I'll let you stew on it some more.

You get the Cosmological argument.

The Teleological argument simply points or aims inference to the most likely explanation of what causes something to cause. I find it funny you don't understand the words "Display intention and preconception" as the attributes purpose and the inference to the best and most likely explanation. The argument is based on intentionality. Do you look at new data and make inference to the best explanation? Or do you look at new data and make a wild shot in the dark? Finally, you don't need a "why" to make an assertion for an "is". If I found an advanced piece of alien technology on the dark side of the moon, I would not need to know why it got there to infer the best explanation is that, some agency obviously put it there. Your conclusion is again false.

The fine tuning argument shows a necessity of the initial conditions to be in a balance so high, that if those numbers were out in minutia, life would not exist. The inference to the best explanation is that it looks like a fixed lottery. Someone stacked the deck and organized chaos into order so it would come out this way. What is your explanation for why the initial conditions came out so perfectly? A multiverse? I'd really like to hear some reasons why this is beyond your realm of understanding?



Darwinist scientists may have discovered that the gene pool operations are possible. They made no ethical prescriptions, they merely depicted the nature of reality. Or quite simply stated that gene pool operations are possible and said nothing else besides that. They had nothing to do with holocaust. Holocaust is a result of the vagaries of Hitler's imagination. The Darwinists would have abhorred the practice.

Negative. Darwinists come in many shapes and sizes. There is a direct correlation between Darwinism, Natural Selection, moving the best gene forward, extermination of genes that are bad, and the practice of doing so, by whatever manifestation including scientists in labs or Nazi soldiers with guns and human furnaces. You're saying those scientists and nazi soldiers, couldn't be Darwinists, which is just stupid. Hitler wasn't erradic in his thinking, he was quite the opposite, very logical and very premeditated and wrote a book defining "his struggle" early on. Immoral yes, surprising, no.

The "ought" from the "is" claim, is self explanatory. I don't know why you're having a problem connecting the dots. You can easily make the same claim for Islamic extremism which leads to doing bad things in the name of your religion. Evil can be logically deduced from any ideology, I'm just making the claim that the worsed of which in history is atheism, ie, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Direct connection between the lack of belief in God to evil.
 
Top