User Tag List

First 18262728293038 Last

Results 271 to 280 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #271
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I don't see how that is fallacious, unless you're arguing that nonbelievers or empiricists are always totally objective.
    No, I'm not.

    All that I'm pointing out is that you (and others) continue to return to the same line of reasoning: that there is a sort of "default theory" (here: "God exists", but for the moment let's set the theistic element of this conversation aside) that must be disproved by any other theory. This is a basic logical fallacy. This is a "critical thinking 101", will-be-on-the-first-test-of-the-first-semester, as-basic-as-they-come logical fallacy. I don't know how else to explain it to make this point more clear than I already have.

    Whatever motives you may believe people have for attempting to disprove this theory are irrelevant: the very notion that one theory is the default theory that must be disproved is fallacious. You're thinking from the wrong end. All theories are in a foot race, if you will: he with the most evidence wins. It doesn't matter if we're talking about theories as to how light may be produced from electricity or theories as to how life came into being: theories stand or fall on the basis of evidence.

    To return to the theistic debate:

    At present, there is no proven way to derive life from matter. There is no winner. However, theories other than the "God did it" theory are pulling ahead and, in fact, the "God did it" theory, at present, has no evidence and is, to rely once more on this metaphor, still standing at the start line.

    Do I believe that there isn't a single scientist in the whole of the venture with a bone to pick with the religious? Of course not. That's why science relies upon empirical evidence that stands or falls regardless of the opinions of those involved.

    As for the perspectivist leaning this thread has begun to take: the extent to which you believe reality (and, consequently, science) is only a matter of personal opinion and perspective is the extent to which you interject your own wishes and inclinations between perception and reality.
    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 --

  2. #272
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default


    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  3. #273
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    All that I'm pointing out is that you (and others) continue to return to the same line of reasoning: that there is a sort of "default theory" (here: "God exists", but for the moment let's set the theistic element of this conversation aside) that must be disproved by any other theory. This is a basic logical fallacy. This is a "critical thinking 101", will-be-on-the-first-test-of-the-first-semester, as-basic-as-they-come logical fallacy. I don't know how else to explain it to make this point more clear than I already have.
    The error in reasoning you are making here is that the proposition "God exists" is a scientific theory or even a type of question that can be meaningfully answered by science. Science has made absolutely no headway into answering this question either in the positive or the negative. It is a horrible avenue to answer this question. Try philosophy or theology as better alternatives.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  4. #274
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    The error in reasoning you are making here is that the proposition "God exists" is a scientific theory or even a type of question that can be meaningfully answered by science. Science has made absolutely no headway into answering this question either in the positive or the negative. It is a horrible avenue to answer this question. Try philosophy or theology as better alternatives.
    First of all, this is a non-sequitur. "Theory A until proven false" is a logical fallacy. This is a fact.

    Secondly, the understanding that a question cannot be answered by accessing some sixth sense, some "feeling" or "intuition" which runs counter to or negates the other five, is hardly an "error in reasoning". The method of "understanding" you posit has a word for it: mysticism.

    Finally, if you look around a bit, you'll discover that there are several promising theories under research. (As I mentioned earlier, when I have the free time, I'll post about these.)
    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 --

  5. #275
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    All that I'm pointing out is that you (and others) continue to return to the same line of reasoning: that there is a sort of "default theory" (here: "God exists", but for the moment let's set the theistic element of this conversation aside) that must be disproved by any other theory. This is a basic logical fallacy. This is a "critical thinking 101", will-be-on-the-first-test-of-the-first-semester, as-basic-as-they-come logical fallacy. I don't know how else to explain it to make this point more clear than I already have.

    Whatever motives you may believe people have for attempting to disprove this theory are irrelevant: the very notion that one theory is the default theory that must be disproved is fallacious. You're thinking from the wrong end. All theories are in a foot race, if you will: he with the most evidence wins. It doesn't matter if we're talking about theories as to how light may be produced from electricity or theories as to how life came into being: theories stand or fall on the basis of evidence.
    Oh sweet Jeebus. This. I want this. Tattooed. On people's foreheads. Forevermore. Amen. Clear thinking is a beautiful thing. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    The error in reasoning you are making here is that the proposition "God exists" is a scientific theory or even a type of question that can be meaningfully answered by science.
    Do you know what question science could very well do a fantastic job of answering, though? How life came to be. If science answers that one, or even partially answers it (and it may have already), it might be very problematic for some believers and their arguments.

    Btw, sorry if I fallaciously pointed out the fallaciousness of the comment I had (fallaciously) assumed you were calling fallacious, Mycroft.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  6. #276
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    First of all, this is a non-sequitur. "Theory A until proven false" is a logical fallacy. This is a fact.
    Well perhaps I misunderstand other posters, but I don't think their propositions are meant to be theories in the strictest sense. The word theory only makes sense in a scientific context.

    Secondly, the understanding that a question cannot be answered by accessing some sixth sense, some "feeling" or "intuition" which runs counter to or negates the other five, is hardly an "error in reasoning". The method of "understanding" you posit has a word for it: mysticism.
    This is a straw man argument. I clearly pointed to philosophy as an avenue to question the existence of God, and philosophers use reason rather than mysticism.

    Finally, if you look around a bit, you'll discover that there are several promising theories under research. (As I mentioned earlier, when I have the free time, I'll post about these.)
    I seriously question the critical thinking skills of anyone who uses science (alone) to answer the question of God's existence.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  7. #277
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I can't speak for other NT's though, but personally I don't really conclude anything with logic. I always lead with intuition and then use logic to check if my conclusion is correct. However there are some instances where logic is virtually useless, and a person must rely on perception alone. For example how does a person conclude the grass is green? They simply see it is green. No thinking is involved, only perception. That is the best analogy I can give for why I believe God. I believe in God, because I perceive that He exists. There is no way to logically prove perception especially if someone else has a different perception. The best I can do logically is simply provide evidence, but evidence is not the same as proof, so ultimately God's existence cannot be proved.
    Here you state unequivocally that you rely upon some sort of "intuition" to arrive at your conclusions, that no thinking is involved, that no logical proof is possible.

    This is nothing more and nothing less than mysticism.

    I seriously question the critical thinking skills of anyone who uses science (alone) to answer the question of God's existence.
    Critical thinking, or ration, is the process of drawing logical conclusions on the basis of verifiable evidence. Without this basis of evidence, we end up with "perfectly rational" inquiries into the number of angels (the existence of which there is no evidence) can dance atop the head of a pin, or whether Judas Iscariot (who may or may not have existed) was forgiven by God (the existence of which there is no evidence).

    Science is the application of this process. Ration, and science as its application, is the only way we have of learning real things about the real universe we live in.

    To demonstrate:

    All alpacas are aquatic animals.
    Poodles are alpacas.
    Therefore, all poodles are aquatic animals.


    Here I have applied logic. Is the conclusion rational? No. logic is merely the vehicle. Without a basis in fact, it cannot said to be rational. Have we learned anything real about the universe? Of course not.

    I believe, Liquid Laser, that you certainly have applied the "vehicle" of logic in justifying some of your beliefs to yourself, but in that they lack an objective, factual basis, your beliefs cannot said to be rational.

    If your beliefs are, in fact, based on factual premises, I'd certainly be interested to see you draw up what these premises are and the conclusions you subsequently arrived at.
    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 --

  8. #278
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Here you state unequivocally that you rely upon some sort of "intuition" to arrive at your conclusions, that no thinking is involved, that no logical proof is possible.

    This is nothing more and nothing less than mysticism.
    I mean intuition in the MBTI sense. I'm not sure what sense you are meaning. Also I don't say that no thinking is involved. Rather I use thinking to conciously see if my intuitions actually check out.

    I'm not really sure how this would look to an INTJ though. Intuition should be your main function, but Te is a filter for a lot of what Ni digests. Ne on the other hand doesn't have a filter.

    Critical thinking, or ration, is the process of drawing logical conclusions on the basis of verifiable evidence. Without this basis of evidence, we end up with "perfectly rational" inquiries into the number of angels (the existence of which there is no evidence) can dance atop the head of a pin, or whether Judas Iscariot (who may or may not have existed) was forgiven by God (the existence of which there is no evidence).

    Science is the application of this process. Ration, and science as its application, is the only way we have of learning real things about the real universe we live in.
    This is something we are just not going to agree on. Furthermore your definition of critical thinking is not the common definition of it, but simply one application. For example, English professors want to teach their students to use "critical thinking" when reading a literary passage or text from a periodical. It doesn't have to pertain to science at all. The idea that critical thinking can only happen within a scientific context shows a lack of "critical thinking".
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #279
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    This is something we are just not going to agree on. Furthermore your definition of critical thinking is not the common definition of it, but simply one application. For example, English professors want to teach their students to use "critical thinking" when reading a literary passage or text from a periodical. It doesn't have to pertain to science at all. The idea that critical thinking can only happen within a scientific context shows a lack of "critical thinking".
    Your hypothetical English professor is calling upon his students to determine whether the premises of the argument are based on fact and whether the conclusions drawn from these premises are logical. How does this fall outside of my definition?

    (And again, if your beliefs are, in fact, based on factual premises, I'd certainly be interested to see you draw up what these premises are and the conclusions you subsequently arrived at.)
    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 --

  10. #280
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KLessard View Post
    What do NTs think of God, and how do they relate to Him ?
    Three Christian-culture NTs I know admit either indifference or little understanding of what they call "religion."

    Is it possible for an NT to be interested in God ?
    In the christian sense the concept of God is idiotic. I prefer to call it creation, there is a natural law and structure to life itself which I'm learning more about every day. I do believe humans hold the realm of creation within themselve and therefore harness infinite power and knowledge. If anyone is god, its us. Although I'd rather just say that we hold the universe and all its wonders within ourselves, we are the universe looking back at ourselves and learning.

    For a better, logical explanation of what I'm saying seek the expertise of one Nassim Haramein. He's spot on.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 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