[NT] NTs and God

[Petite Etoile]

No, INTJs are perfectly capable of being mistaken, just like everyone else.

I'd ask you to read my above post, though, about the problem of causation--and then tell me how you're able to make the jump from "there must be some first cause" to "Jesus Christ is my omnipotent, omniscient, eternally loving and forgiving lord and savior, he has supernatural powers and I have abundant specific and definite information on him."

When you can do that, other NTs will probably begin to respect your belief system more.

yeah, i acknowledge that fact that my views of God could be wrong, but i also acknowledge that so can yours

i don't really like to argue with people about my beliefs because i consider my spirituality to be personal. and i know i can't convince people anyways so i don't really see any purpose to it.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

A small quibble:

I don't believe that we can never know for certain; I believe that we don't presently know for certain and may not ever.

This may be a difference between "P" and "J", but I don't think I can ever know anything for certain. For each piece of knowledge there are merely degrees of certainty.

 

[Totenkindly]

This may be a difference between "P" and "J", but I don't think I can ever know anything for certain. For each piece of knowledge there are merely degrees of certainty.

Yup, each item gets tagged in terms of "knownability".

And honestly, how could we ever think we COULD know everything? The most gaping weakness: We don't know what we don't know. Therefore how would we recognize there's something that we don't know, if we don't know it?

Unconfirmability seems inherent.

yeah, i acknowledge that fact that my views of God could be wrong, but i also acknowledge that so can yours. i don't really like to argue with people about my beliefs because i consider my spirituality to be personal. and i know i can't convince people anyways so i don't really see any purpose to it.

My ESTP father never wanted to talk about faith either under the claim it was "personal" ... although I thought that was utter BS for him, it was because he hated being subservient to something besides himself and didn't want to place himself in a position where he might look bad if he lost an argument.

But in general, yes, the arguing for many seems counter-productive, although NTs tend to share BY challenging ideas. Of course they are more apt to argue concepts and principles; the STs tend to focus more on points and detail.

I think sharing is cool. You get my story, I get yours, maybe there's something there that will resonate. That's a positive interaction not just due to lack of aggression but also because it assumes the other person is responsible and smart enough to figure things out for herself, rather than supposing that one needs to somehow "force" other people to spiritually develop in some way and otherwise they wouldn't.

 

[Petite Etoile]

But in general, yes, the arguing for many seems counter-productive, although NTs tend to share BY challenging ideas. Of course they are more apt to argue concepts and principles; the STs tend to focus more on points and detail.

I think sharing is cool. You get my story, I get yours, maybe there's something there that will resonate. That's a positive interaction not just due to lack of aggression but also because it assumes the other person is responsible and smart enough to figure things out for herself, rather than supposing that one needs to somehow "force" other people to spiritually develop in some way and otherwise they wouldn't.

I actually am open to talking about religion for the most part, it really just depends on the person i'm talking to. I've had a lot of experiences where people just become overly aggressive though (mainly ENTPs). I agree sharing is cool, but if people are just going to be blatantly disrespectful or try to force me to think like them, i'm not going to bother discussing my beliefs with them.

 

[Helios]

This may be a difference between "P" and "J", but I don't think I can ever know anything for certain. For each piece of knowledge there are merely degrees of certainty.

I think there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain; "2+2=4", "a square has 4 sides", and, "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)".

 

[Costrin]

I think there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain; "2+2=4", "a square has 4 sides", and, "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)".

Where is your undeniable proof of that? Inductive reasoning does not count here.

I think you will find there isn't any, and that you can never truly know. Like the example someone gave a while ago, how do you do know that every time you think of 2+2, some force doesn't make you think it's 4, when in fact it's actually 5?

 

[Anja]

Governor Blagojovich says, "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen." See how good that works?

 

[DigitalMethod]

Where is your undeniable proof of that? Inductive reasoning does not count here.

I think you will find there isn't any, and that you can never truly know. Like the example someone gave a while ago, how do you do know that every time you think of 2+2, some force doesn't make you think it's 4, when in fact it's actually 5?

But you can never prove that. More importantly, there is no evidence that that is true. You can always ask "what if." You can ask questions about consciousness however you will be forever stuck in consciousness. There is no way to observe anything outside of consciousness. Therefore it is largely irrelevant to question consciousness I would say.

Personally I ignore questions like that and don't let my mind play with them. They are fun sometimes though...

 

[Costrin]

But you can never prove that. More importantly, there is no evidence that that is true. You can always ask "what if." You can ask questions about consciousness however you will be forever stuck in consciousness. There is no way to observe anything outside of consciousness. Therefore it is largely irrelevant to question consciousness I would say.

Personally I ignore questions like that and don't let my mind play with them. They are fun sometimes though...

That is my position exactly.

 

[DigitalMethod]

That is my position exactly.

I just popped into this thread and saw your post.
Thought of my opinion and response and posted it.
I am unaware of any debates going on or whatnot.

 

[Anja]

Governor Blagojovich says, "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen." See how good that works?

My point with this post is that the position of "You can't prove that." isn't a statement of accuracy as much as it is a means of trying to stay in power in the situation.

And sometimes. Some people. "Know," even if they can't prove it, as Gov. Blagojovich found out today.

 

[DigitalMethod]

My point with this post is that the position of "You can't prove that." isn't a statement of accuracy as much as it is a means of trying to stay in power in the situation.

And sometimes. Some people. "Know," even if they can't prove it, as Gov. Blagojovich found out today.

Stay in power of what?

 

[Anja]

Of the argument.

 

[Mycroft]

And honestly, how could we ever think we COULD know everything? The most gaping weakness: We don't know what we don't know. Therefore how would we recognize there's something that we don't know, if we don't know it?

I find the notion of "degrees of truth" to be rather anthropocentric; that something can only be "true" to the extent that mankind deems it such.

In all things, there is the truth of the matter. Man does what he can to approach the truth. He may or may not ever discover it. Yet, the truth of the matter exists and is independent of man's investigations.

 

[DigitalMethod]

Of the argument.

I didn't know one was going on.
But I don't see what the gain is of being in control of that.

I think the argument of the existence of god is pointless.
It's natural, but pointless.

 

[Mycroft]

I think the argument of the existence of god is pointless.
It's natural, but pointless.

Nearly pointless, but not entirely. There are always those few who value ration enough to rethink their beliefs when their premises or logic are shown to be faulty.

 

[Costrin]

Nearly pointless, but not entirely. There are always those few who value ration enough to rethink their beliefs when their premises or logic are shown to be faulty.

Plus, I enjoy it. Perhaps eventually I'll tire of it, but as of right now, it's still enjoyable.

I find the notion of "degrees of truth" to be rather anthropocentric; that something can only be "true" to the extent that mankind deems it such.

In all things, there is the truth of the matter. Man does what he can to approach the truth. He may or may not ever discover it. Yet, the truth of the matter exists and is independent of man's investigations.

Yup. That's true. Except, how do you know it's true? You can't. Except theoretically you can, and theoretically you can't. Paradoxical.

My point with this post is that the position of "You can't prove that." isn't a statement of accuracy as much as it is a means of trying to stay in power in the situation.

And sometimes. Some people. "Know," even if they can't prove it, as Gov. Blagojovich found out today.

It often is, but in this case, people were pointing out technicalities. Technicalities with no practical benefit, but hey, since when did that ever matter when technicalities are called out?

 

[Mycroft]

Yup. That's true. Except, how do you know it's true? You can't. Except theoretically you can, and theoretically you can't. Paradoxical.

Well, even if we are plugged into a "Matrix" and everything we believe to be true is false, the truth of that matter would still exist.

We would simply be extremely unlikely ever to discover it.

 

[DigitalMethod]

Nearly pointless, but not entirely. There are always those few who value ration enough to rethink their beliefs when their premises or logic are shown to be faulty.

To prove a religion is faulty... well that rarely happens. They operate on faith. You can never tell someone what they feel is incorrect. Only that they have no proof. And this just continues.

Until there is actual proof on either side, consider me agnostic with an interest in philosophy.

 

[Mycroft]

To prove a religion is faulty... well that rarely happens. They operate on faith. You can never tell someone what they feel is incorrect. Only that they have no proof. And this just continues.

You're absolutely correct, and I make no effort to engage the "faith" crowd. It's the people who claim that their religious beliefs have some basis in ration that I consider it (occasionally) worthwhile to discuss with.

If, through the course of discussion, it comes to light that his premises or logic are flawed, the genuinely rational man (or woman) will rethink his beliefs. Similarly, if there is someone out there with compelling evidence in support of a deity, I and all others like me would be very much interested in seeing it.