User Tag List

First 19272829303139 Last

Results 281 to 290 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #281
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    When it comes to belief in God I actually didn't want to believe he existed. However my experiences have lead me to believe otherwise. You are right though that I didn't conclude God existed through logic. (Logic is simply how I try to explain things to other NT's, but it doesn't work too well with atheists because we are operating under different axioms.)
    I agree with the parenthetical part.

    Funny -- my experience was the opposite. I started out believing in Him since my earliest memories and WANTED to believe in him... but my intellectual integrity is such that I have to be very clear and fair about what I can prove and show and what I cannot.

    The evidence has been ambiguous to me; I can't determine whether my spiritual sensibilities and perceptions are part of some anomalous physical/bio state or whether I'm perceiving and experiencing things beyond the material realm.

    At this stage, I just accept that it's ambiguous. I can live as if I believe in God and that paradigm is real to me; at the same time, I can carry its shadow and acknowledge that there might not be anything there at all and I'm just too far immersed in my framework and biology to evaluate it from the outside.

    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.
    I have trouble determining what's logic and intuition, for me -- they both work so closely together. My intuition uses logic to make connections from data to data and fill in blanks, and logic uses intuition to formulate new points... it is sort of a blur.

    I was very unhappy in my teens and 20's though, because I had intuitive ideas but had separated them from logic, and was trying so hard to prove to others that spiritually I was 'right' via logic and dismissing intuition and feelings.

    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.
    Yes, it's SOMETHING.... and we've labeled that something 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.
    Maybe it's the delineation between what can be perceived and what actually can be formulated that causes issues? I think many people have perceived God (or a higher spiritual reality) but either the perception was limited (and thus God is limited) or they add extra things to the perception that they THINK were part of the perception but were NOT... just actually spiritual baggage of sorts.

    (We see this in cultural studies of faith - people extrapolate from a small pool of data to suddenly make broad pronouncements of what must be true and why other experiences that don't mesh up in the superficialities must be false.)

    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"), 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. ... 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.
    yes, that's definitely part of the baggage I refer to. I experience it not just in the religious discussions, but in social conundrums that involve preference or psychological/spiritual values. I see people assume their position is the default, and this justifies their view of the other person as the "defector" or "violator" and then leads to particular courses of action being taken. If they would see it as no one has the high ground and that all viewpoints are inherently unprovable, their behavior and attitude would change accordingly and the situation would become easier to resolve; it's hard for people to overcome that strong inner bias if they view their own views as the "standard" against which other things are the deviation.

    With me, I'm stuck: I see patterns of deity and Providence, and I also see a self-sufficient system that operates like a giant mobile, potentially having spawned itself. I'm not sure which is right, even though I can operate in either sphere quite well. I don't see either as the "default." But I remember (with some pain) the look on a loved one's face when I told them what I saw... because I was obviously deranged compared to their assumption of their position as the default.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #282
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,673

    Default

    I think that something is underestimated in this thread to some degree and I think that generalization will not lead us far

    On this world world we have NTs that have more standard interests and we have NTs that are into hard science and reasearch.

    I think that there is very large difference between those two.

    One thing is to read some magazines from time to time and to watch TV and work in the office for a living,

    Jet another thing is to be professionally into it and deal with "godless" things every single day. (like me)

  3. #283
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    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.
    Actually; "default theory" is your term, not ours. (Hence, another straw man). I'm not trying to prove it's default, but rather respond to claims that its "irrationality" or whatever else your side levels our way is the "default" position just because you do not have the evidence you want.
    As Laser touched upon; perhaps it's an Ne vs Ni perspective. Ne does not filter out the ideas, but looks at them seriously. Te demands hard evidence. But Ti is also more likely to fill in the blanks that a world that works as it does appears to be designed.
    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.
    This based on what? Either there is evidence of how life developed with or without intelligence, or there is not. If neither theory has that evidence, they're both at the starting line, or running neck and neck somewhere. There is a lot of jumping the gun.
    Again, this presumption that an atheistic theory is "way ahead" seems to be based on filling in many of the other gaps and then generalizing the evidence to the gaps it hasn't filled in yet. "Y'all were wrong on God causing every lighting bolt because we can now explain it; so the origin of life, (and of the universe itself) must be the same way". But actually, all that would mean is that science has caught up. Theism was basically "ahead" before the knowledge increased. Just because theism may have had a false lead in the past doesn't automatically propel the opponent into the lead. But that's what your side is often doing; presuming to have left us in the dust now.
    This is all I am addressing. Nothing about any "default". We're on the defensive now, not the offensive! It might be "default" to us, but when we're called irrational, mocked (like that image floating around here) and all sorts of other things, then we are going to argue our case.
    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.
    Reality; no; science, that's a different story, as "science" means "knowledge", and this basically describes our perceptions of reality, and thus is fallible and even subject to skewing by personal opinion and perspective. That's what your side needs to stop forgetting. You're not above the same humanity as these "irrational" religious people.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #284
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    4

    Default

    God is real.. so real that you are "oblivious" without prior knowledge.

    I can prove GOD is a real force.
    an IDEALISTIC force..

    god is human.
    to know is to be...

    an all pervasive nature that underlines everything a person can know

    then u shall fear the love of god .
    unless u meet him face to face..

  5. #285
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Actually; "default theory" is your term, not ours. (Hence, another straw man). I'm not trying to prove it's default, but rather respond to claims that its "irrationality" or whatever else your side levels our way is the "default" position just because you do not have the evidence you want.
    As Laser touched upon; perhaps it's an Ne vs Ni perspective. Ne does not filter out the ideas, but looks at them seriously. Te demands hard evidence. But Ti is also more likely to fill in the blanks that a world that works as it does appears to be designed.
    Or perhaps it's not an Ne vs Ni difference. I agree with what Mycroft is saying, and I am definitely TiNe. My perspective is that the logical thing to do when judging available theories to explain a particular event(s), is that you should start with a base level of... nothing. You believe no explanation about what happened, until you have carefully examined various explanations and found one that is supported by the evidence. If there is no theory that is supported by the evidence, then you settle for "I don't know", and hopefully, continue looking for evidence and refining the theories, and possibly creating new ones that fit the evidence. Filling in blanks is unscientific, if what you are filling the blanks with is unsupported.

    This based on what? Either there is evidence of how life developed with or without intelligence, or there is not. If neither theory has that evidence, they're both at the starting line, or running neck and neck somewhere. There is a lot of jumping the gun.
    Again, this presumption that an atheistic theory is "way ahead" seems to be based on filling in many of the other gaps and then generalizing the evidence to the gaps it hasn't filled in yet. "Y'all were wrong on God causing every lighting bolt because we can now explain it; so the origin of life, (and of the universe itself) must be the same way". But actually, all that would mean is that science has caught up. Theism was basically "ahead" before the knowledge increased. Just because theism may have had a false lead in the past doesn't automatically propel the opponent into the lead. But that's what your side is often doing; presuming to have left us in the dust now.
    This is all I am addressing. Nothing about any "default". We're on the defensive now, not the offensive! It might be "default" to us, but when we're called irrational, mocked (like that image floating around here) and all sorts of other things, then we are going to argue our case.
    I think you misunderstand here. We are not claiming to have won, and not claiming that you were wrong about God and lightning bolts. Rather, 'we' are saying that the explanation that God causes lightning bolts is not supported by any evidence, and therefore unlikely to be right, and on the other hand, the commonly accepted explanation offered by the scientific community is supported by evidence, and therefore, likely to be right (note the word (un)likely, it isn't a 100% certain statement). Furthermore, no one I know would seriously claim that because we are right about lightning bolts, we are also right about the origin of life/universe. I do believe however, that there is evidence in support of the 'atheistic explanations'. They make claims which are testable and falsifiable, and in some cases the outcome of experiments agree with the predictions the theories make. This is a huge lead over theistic explanations which are not testable and falsifiable, and though in some cases they may make predictions, it is impossible to test them.

    Reality; no; science, that's a different story, as "science" means "knowledge", and this basically describes our perceptions of reality, and thus is fallible and even subject to skewing by personal opinion and perspective. That's what your side needs to stop forgetting. You're not above the same humanity as these "irrational" religious people.
    Nobody from 'my side' would ever claim that they are infallible, or somehow above their subjective opinions and perspective. It is a strawman on your part to claim that people from 'my side' hold these views.

  6. #286
    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
    Actually; "default theory"...
    You have repeatedly reworded the same argument:

    "Science has been able to prove how a few things occur, but it hasn't proved that God doesn't exist."

    This is a basic logical fallacy. That is all I've pointed out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    My perspective is that the logical thing to do when judging available theories to explain a particular event(s), is that you should start with a base level of... nothing. You believe no explanation about what happened, until you have carefully examined various explanations and found one that is supported by the evidence. If there is no theory that is supported by the evidence, then you settle for "I don't know", and hopefully, continue looking for evidence and refining the theories, and possibly creating new ones that fit the evidence. Filling in blanks is unscientific, if what you are filling the blanks with is unsupported.
    Precisely. (To this paragraph and the two that followed as well!)
    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 --

  7. #287
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I think that something is underestimated in this thread to some degree and I think that generalization will not lead us far

    Jet another thing is to be professionally into it and deal with "godless" things every single day. (like me)
    Well the NT generalization won't get you far either. But I think dealing with "godless" things everyday doesn't mean much. If you are an intelligent person, you'll have a somewhat cemented idea of how the world works, one way or the other.

  8. #288
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sytpg View Post
    Well the NT generalization won't get you far either. But I think dealing with "godless" things everyday doesn't mean much. If you are an intelligent person, you'll have a somewhat cemented idea of how the world works, one way or the other.
    I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that NTs are quite heterogenetic group.

    But I think that being professionally into evolution can create big impact upon person in this kinds of things.

  9. #289
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that NTs are quite heterogenetic group.

    But I think that being professionally into evolution can create big impact upon person in this kinds of things.
    A few years back when I still considered myself christian, I used all my intellectual capacity to validate what needed validation most of the time. Even then, I thought it was unwise to trust everything in the Bible as true, though. There's conflicting ideas in that book. But that means very little considering the book was an account of events written by normal human people. But it's not because I don't think the Bible can be regarded as dogma that I'm not a believer. I always believed in evolution, even when I was a christian.

    I don't know much about MBTI but I never regarded NTs as any more diverse or eclectic a group. Which is why I said this thread concept's problem isn't the nature of the NT group - it's the nature of groups. Any and every group.

  10. #290
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sytpg View Post
    I don't know much about MBTI but I never regarded NTs as any more diverse or eclectic a group. Which is why I said this thread concept's problem isn't the nature of the NT group - it's the nature of groups. Any and every group.
    That is true, but this thread is specific and aims to NTs so I was talking about NTs. If someone one wants to exapand topic it is fine by me. But for that we will need another thread.

    As for personal part I just wanted to say that I am clearly on atheistic side of the spectrum.

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