NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pmKeep in mind that all truths arrived at empirically or logically are based on the acceptance of the reality of an observation or the truth of a premise - they are not true independent of those. So whether we rely on faith, or empirical observations, or on valid reasoning based on premises - all three of these require an assumption or an acceptance of a truth to start with.
Could we simplify the above to say all positions on the topic of God are built of faith?
You two could say that. But that would not be the actual Truth of things.
I suggest when discussing things that what is said is ONLY thee Truth. That is; the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but thee Truth, only. That way discovering, learning, seeing, and understanding what thee actual Truth IS, is just a very simple and very easy process, done very quickly.
Why I say what you propose here is not thee actual Truth of things is because some positions on the topic of God are built on KNOWING, which obviously could be shown and proven with evidence.
But obviously this could NEVER happen to those who BELIEVE otherwise.
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
Faith in personal experience, faith in religious authority, faith in the infinite scope of human reason. Isn't any position, conclusion or theory on this topic built upon a foundation of faith in chosen authorities whose qualifications for this particular investigation can not be proven?
Personal experience, religious authority and human reason all have proven themselves useful in various ways in our daily lives at human scale. It seems most folks on every side are making an unwarranted leap from that fact to an assumption that such authorities are therefore also useful, credible and qualified at the very largest of scales, such as in the God question.
If one is comfortable with faith and huge unproven assumptions, then ok, case closed, have a good day and enjoy your life. But, the realm of philosophy does not look kindly upon faith and huge unproven assumptions, so what approach can the philosopher take?
One approach can be to return to observation of reality. What can it tell us?
One thing we might notice is that which we call "things" make up the tiniest fraction of the observable universe, whereas that which we call "nothing" makes up the overwhelming vast majority. So, that which we call "nothing" would seem to be a very big deal.
Who says; "That which we call "nothing" makes up the overwhelming vast majority?
Also, if some thing, which some call "nothing" that supposedly "makes up the overwhelming vast majority", then why would that "seem to be a very big deal".
Some people, for example, seem to think their brand new motor vehicle is a "very big deal", while to them the "overwhelming vast majority" is not that much of a big deal at all.
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
If we re-examine the God question, we may see that all points of view are attempting to make God in to a "thing". Religious people will say, God is this, God is that, God has these properties, and so on. Atheist people will say that God doesn't exist, that is, God is a proposed thing which doesn't actually exist, just as there is no pencil on my desk.
When you say, "re-examine the God question", what question is that exactly? Is that the question of this thread topic, or did you have another one?
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
What if we drop this insistence that God must be a thing? What if reality is trying to tell us that what we call nothing is the main show, and that things are just tiny little details?
What is this "nothing" exactly, which you allege is the "overwhelming vast majority" and which you are referring to here?
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
From this perspective we could ask, what is the state of mind that is most aligned with reality? And from this perspective the answer would seem to be, an empty mind, a mind largely free of conceptual things.
One could go down that path, if they so chose to.
But let us look at this again and follow the steps:
1. If reality can really talk to us,
2 Then what if reality is trying to tell us that what we call "nothing" is the main show?
3. And, all the things that we do actually see and hear, however, are just tiny little details.
4. For some reason we now ask; "What is the state of mind that is most aligned with reality?
5. And the answer is said to be that it would seem to be; "An empty mind is the most aligned state of mind of reality".
Following on from this;
1. This is all based on the premise reality can talk and is trying to tell us some thing.
2. What if reality is not trying to tell us any such thing at all, or even trying to tell us anything at all? What happens if one has worked out how to just listen to what is actually being told to us?
3. I would suggest that if one can see things and no things, then both are just as important as each other. In fact, could the show go on if there was ONLY "nothing". There only exists a part ("overwhelming vast majority"??) of "nothing" because there are some things, and vice-verse some things only exist because there is a part made of nothing. The two co-existing together is the main show. There obviously could not be any show at all if there was only just no thing or either just one thing.
4. Why do we ask this question? It sounds, to me, like this is a leading question looking specifically with an answer, which would confirm our already held belief or assumption.
5. Obviously a "state of mind" most aligned with a so called "reality" of "nothing" would be an "empty mind". The two do go together. But what is an "empty mind" if nothing at all really, anyway?
Also, are you aware that "a mind largely free of conceptual things' is NOT "an empty mind" at all?
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 amOnce liberated from our thoughts about reality, we are then free to observe reality far more closely. This might be compared to turning down the volume of the TV so we can devote our full attention to what our friend is saying.
Okay, this sounds like a process, but how do you arrive at the "nothing" and "empty mind" conclusion?
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
To the degree the above is true, philosophy is useful in getting us to this point. And then it becomes more obstacle than asset.
What does 'philosophy' mean to you, and how was that useful to getting you to the point about "nothing" and "empty mind"?
Also, what is the purpose of discovering or learning this? What does this actually achieve afterwards?
NukeBan wrote: ↑May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
This may be a key reason why philosophers are eternally confused and conflicted about God. Philosophers, including this one, may like philosophy too much, a form of bias which may interfere with the investigation. We may care more about the tool being used than the actual investigation. Maybe we're only willing to follow the investigation trail as far as philosophy can take us, and then we turn back, and return to the tiny realm of things.
Any human being will and can only go so far as their own beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right. Obviously NO human being is going to investigate any thing further than what they already assume and/or believe is true and right already.