User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 126

  1. #51
    mrs disregard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom
    I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God.
    It is not so much that science falls short of the ability measure God, but rather, God falls short of the ability (or desire.. what have you) to make himself evident.

  2. #52
    Member Camelopardalis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God.
    God is a spirit and can only be perceived by a spirit.
    True, science cannot measure God, but among other things, just as it cannot measure the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. I think God is a belief and can only be perceived as a belief.

  3. #53
    @.~*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 Dana View Post
    It is not so much that science falls short of the ability measure God, but rather, God falls short of the ability (or desire.. what have you) to make himself evident.
    So that large question remains (and can't really be answered by science or in a blanket way) whether God is not irrefutably evident because He isn't there, or simply because it suits His ultimate purposes to not be so obviously evident.

    People can make cases for either.

    So, to get back to the topic, what makes an NT choose to believe in a particular case conclusively over another one, versus embracing ambiguity and not endorsing either case as the truth?
    "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

  4. #54
    mrs disregard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    I believe it has to do with consistency. However NTs build upon their foundation of truth is how they will determine God's existence. If an NT demands evidence, then he will not believe in God. If an NT seeks an answer, he will have to embrace ambiguity.

  5. #55
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    well unless your uncaring about such things of course.
    Not at all. I care deeply, just as I do for the fact that you're a uncouth heathen who's gonna burn, burn, BURN!

  6. #56
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God..
    Science relies on empirical evidence to make the assessments it makes. Their epistemic methodology is primarily empiricistic. This is one way to discover objective truth.

    I see another one, however, that of the rationalist epistemology. Or perceiving what is objectively true based on abstract reasoning. For example, two mathematicians can solve a calculus problem (a problem no doubt that has nothing to do with the concrete world and one that is therefore off limits to the empiricist), and by virtue of the laws of mathematical logic we all can see which of the two got the right answer.

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

    Hence, at this point we should be willing to say that we know of two sound epistemic methodologies--or two reliable ways to discover truth.

    Can you ascertain of God's existence by one of these two? As we have established you cannot do this with the first method, or the empiricist. But can you do this with the secondary method I have propounded?

    If you cannot accomplish this with these two epistemic methods, can you think of another method that could accomplish this with?


    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    God is a spirit and can only be perceived by a spirit.
    What is this 'spirit', and is it one of those epistemic methods that we can count on to deliver objective truth to us?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #57
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camelopardalis View Post
    In my opinion, religion and deities are kept out of science is because they are vague, most often times assumptions to 'fill in the gap of knowledge'. God does not require an explanation if you use him to explain everything. Any time there's a mystery, one can say: God triggered this. He has performed a miracle. By my standards at least, response like that is unacceptable logically (but we can't say otherwise until new, authentic evidence arrive, can we? What if we don't find them? So God definitely had a hand in it? Could it be that the evidence was destroyed? Any other reasons other than God?). Science looks for an explanation of things and more often than not finds a solution that makes sense. Another reason why science dismisses God before collecting data is because back then, when ignorance is strong, people use supernatural means to explain many things, such as mental illness. Most of them turned out to be natural, don't they? Science is merely applying a common pattern of causes to their investigation. Anything that we don't have an answer for, could it be that we don't have an answer, yet? Considering God before collecting data is like considering the possibility that the experiment or investigation is unnecessary because it's a miracle or divine intervention.
    Yes, I agree. But one has to realize that another implication of this is that science has no ability to answer theological questions. It purposely leaves God out. It's very useful for discovering the patterns of nature, but totally impotent at explaining whether or not these patterns have anything to do with some type of higher power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana
    It is not so much that science falls short of the ability measure God, but rather, God falls short of the ability (or desire.. what have you) to make himself evident.
    Actually it is exactly that science falls short of the ability to measure God. I cannot think of any phenomena that could be observed that would cause science to declare that God exists. Science purposely leaves God out of the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing
    Hence, at this point we should be willing to say that we know of two sound epistemic methodologies--or two reliable ways to discover truth.

    Can you ascertain of God's existence by one of these two? As we have established you cannot do this with the first method, or the empiricist. But can you do this with the secondary method I have propounded?

    If you cannot accomplish this with these two epistemic methods, can you think of another method that could accomplish this with?
    I do not believe you can do this rationally unless your a priori assertions are ones that would logically conclude to belief/disbelief in God (or some other deity). Generally these assertions are not much different than simply stating that God exists (or doesn't exist) as a foundational assertion.

    Belief in God is essentially a personal endeavor. One must decide on their own what standard should be used and then apply it. In a Christian context I would suggest this statement of Jesus to be a good standard to start with, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." Jn. 7:17 First follow the teachings of Christ and then decide whether or not they come from God.
    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

  8. #58
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Science relies on empirical evidence to make the assessments it makes. Their epistemic methodology is primarily empiricistic. This is one way to discover objective truth.

    I see another one, however, that of the rationalist epistemology. Or perceiving what is objectively true based on abstract reasoning. For example, two mathematicians can solve a calculus problem (a problem no doubt that has nothing to do with the concrete world and one that is therefore off limits to the empiricist), and by virtue of the laws of mathematical logic we all can see which of the two got the right answer.
    That's an excellent point.

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

    Hence, at this point we should be willing to say that we know of two sound epistemic methodologies--or two reliable ways to discover truth.

    Can you ascertain of God's existence by one of these two? As we have established you cannot do this with the first method, or the empiricist. But can you do this with the secondary method I have propounded?
    I'd be curious to know the answer to that myself.

    If you cannot accomplish this with these two epistemic methods, can you think of another method that could accomplish this with?

    What is this 'spirit', and is it one of those epistemic methods that we can count on to deliver objective truth to us?
    I suppose it very well could be, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

  9. #59
    mrs disregard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Science purposely leaves God out of the discussion.
    "Science is the effort to understand how nature works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding."

    Science does not purposely leave God out of the discussion, God simply does not meet the criteria for discussion because his existence is non falsifiable.

  10. #60
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I do not believe you can do this rationally unless your a priori assertions are ones that would logically conclude to belief/disbelief in God (or some other deity). Generally these assertions are not much different than simply stating that God exists (or doesn't exist) as a foundational assertion.God.
    No you cant do this rationally. Whats worse is that we don't even know what God is.

    Essentially it is perceived as some other-worldly ineffable entity. Ineffable means inscrutable by definition--or outside of our understanding, there is nothing about it that we can know.

    This, of course, is not the attitude of our theologians is they indeed do believe they can know all they wish to know about god and its all so cut and dry and their concrete symbols and rituals that any philistine can understand!

    That is a debasement of the ineffable ideal image of God--manifest idolatry!

    It is best not to believe in God or acknowledge that it is some odd thing that we cannot correspond with any earthly entity and one we should not try to define. Otherwise this idea is simply mistaken for some entity of this world. We start worshipping not the ineffable spiritual, higher essence of God, but ink and paper, the literal words inscribed in our books, the statues we've erected and the edifices we practice our religion.

    Thus, because we have such a very concrete notion of God, (the way he is described in the book of dogma)---idolatry becomes close to inevitable.

    Its difficult to extract spirituality from the Conventional Judeo-Christian creed. It is best to abandon that path. If you wish to seek spirituality, you're on your own. Following an authority is not an option because when we need to make spirituality accessible to all--we have no choice but to make it concrete. This is where we lose it, as the only way we can explain an idea to others is by relating it to this world. Relating it to things we have experienced. However, when you try to imagine what you've been presented, you will not be able to grasp the idea of spirituality because it does not relate to anything you've experienced. Therefore you will have stored in your mind only what could be related to what you have experienced, namely the concrete symbol bestowed upon you by your teacher. In the end, the rituals and concrete symbols will be all that have gone through because the spiritual message itself is non-transferrable, as it cannot be associated with any symbols of communication inherent within this world.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Belief in God is essentially a personal endeavor. One must decide on their own what standard should be used and then apply it. .
    Where did this idea of God come from?

    If you're going to say that you just want to believe this as a bare assertion, why dont I say that we shall believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

    Why is the Christian personal endeavor better than the one I offer?


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    First follow the teachings of Christ and then decide whether or not they come from God.
    Why not also follow my gospel on how to become the greatest swamp digger on Earth and then decide whether or not my teaching comes from God?

    I don't think that we should first believe in ideas and then ask if they are sound (meaning, ask if we should have believed them in the first place), it would be more efficient to first decide if the idea is sound before believing in it.

    It would be more efficient to look before we leap. Otherwise, if we first and foremost accept the final answer to our question, we likely will look to affirm our beliefs. Or carefully examine mostly ideas that agree with what we already believe in, and pay little heed to those that countervail.

    For this reason it is difficult for religious philosophers to maintain intellectually honesty and objectivity---(Maimonides, Aquinas, James and Tillich were very rare and striking cases indeed), as they are first and foremost concerned with maintaining loyalty to what they already believe in and not acquisition of truth.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs, how did you distance yourself from emotion?
    By Lemonade in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-31-2009, 08:11 PM
  2. [NT] NT! Why are you ASSHOLES?
    By ThatGirl in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 09:32 PM
  3. [NT] NTs . . . Why are You Messy?
    By Haight in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 12:24 PM
  4. Why did you choose your user name?
    By Natrushka in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:52 AM
  5. Why did you choose your current (or past) avatar(s)?
    By Totenkindly in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 11:03 PM

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