Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I kinda want to ask for the proof, but I also don’t want to enable inanity.
Worrying that a transcript from the half-time team talk at Anfield has leaked although I suppose it all makes more sense now.
@neverdie 's posts seem eerily similar to another poster we had on here a while ago.
Do you understand the principle?
Salt is not what it is (in itself) to a human for it has a different quality to a snail. What is salt then? Where is its essence? Noumenal. Which is a metaphysical proof when extended. The only one which exists in logic thus far.
Now, the counter is "perhaps it has not quality at all". But it does. To a human and to a snail. And different to each.
Now, then, you cannot know the value of any single quality in itself. Not a single one. Which has enormous effects for science and mathematics and every branch of human reasoning.
The confirmation of a 2500 year old argument.
If you read about the noumenal, you know it refers to "beyond" the only true metaphysical/physical aprori which confirms Chomsky and Godel. In differential ways.
The idea that Universal Grammar was wrong - I've gone through the counters - is wrong. It is correct in principle. And confirmed.
The idea that Godel's theorem only held for certain equation - no. ALL.
V(X) - always a value, but always incomplete (in itself). By necessity. And it matters not how many temporal differentials you add or remove. Infinite/Finite, each handled. Series of all knowns, presumptions of unknown knowables, handled. It never falls.
As it goes for religion - universal grammar is assonant with the Gospel. Its core premises. Humanism. Equality. Etc. Be not as the scribes/pharisees? All assonant with V(X). Totalitarianism, via ideological/positivistic certainty, is out of bounds within their own language. Logic. Mathematics. Science.
The best lack all conviction
the worst are filled with
passionate intensity.
totalitarianism 1919. Yeats. Now, within the Eugenicists'/positivists' own ground, science, such is out of bounds. They have to ignrore their own reason.
Salt is not what it is (in itself) to a human for it has a different quality to a snail. What is salt then? Where is its essence? Noumenal. Which is a metaphysical proof when extended. The only one which exists in logic thus far.
Now, the counter is "perhaps it has not quality at all". But it does. To a human and to a snail. And different to each.
Now, then, you cannot know the value of any single quality in itself. Not a single one. Which has enormous effects for science and mathematics and every branch of human reasoning.
The confirmation of a 2500 year old argument.
If you read about the noumenal, you know it refers to "beyond" the only true metaphysical/physical aprori which confirms Chomsky and Godel. In differential ways.
The idea that Universal Grammar was wrong - I've gone through the counters - is wrong. It is correct in principle. And confirmed.
The idea that Godel's theorem only held for certain equation - no. ALL.
V(X) - always a value, but always incomplete (in itself). By necessity. And it matters not how many temporal differentials you add or remove. Infinite/Finite, each handled. Series of all knowns, presumptions of unknown knowables, handled. It never falls.
As it goes for religion - universal grammar is assonant with the Gospel. Its core premises. Humanism. Equality. Etc. Be not as the scribes/pharisees? All assonant with V(X). Totalitarianism, via ideological/positivistic certainty, is out of bounds within their own language. Logic. Mathematics. Science.
The best lack all conviction
the worst are filled with
passionate intensity.
totalitarianism 1919. Yeats. Now, within the Eugenicists'/positivists' own ground, science, such is out of bounds. They have to ignrore their own reason.
Last edited:
science is a discursivity - saussurean arbtirariness.
order is innate but no given - existing order - lexical/otherwise is.
thus, mathematics/ai/science? kantian objectivity. fire is hot. everyone agrees, and they need not? why then? because it's a quality of fire. common. but that is not what fire is in itself. thus, it has a value, V, and an essence which necessarily exists beyond the physical value derived by any possible knowledge series (not to confuse).
V(X). Essence is X. Noumenal. Proven by many differential combinations which all state the same thing - no number of possible physical combinations ever overcomes V(X). The essence is always beyond. within, and beyond. it cannot be quantified. it transcends logic and quantification, numerical, of all varieties - that do or can ever possibly exist.
i.e., it by virtue of V(X) that any physical truths at all, scientific, ever exist in human concept/ideal/knowledge. therefore, none can possibly undo that. it is apriori.
Proven? Really? Or just discussed ad nauseam by Kant scholars? The rest of us don't worry about such things.
It really isn't. Rather the opposite.
Show me the data.
Which salt? This one?
If so that is salt ^. I'm not sure what the rest of the pseudo-philosophical word salad is for.
Or what is has to do with the belief that there is a supernatural ethereal supreme being?
It’s like that guy I keep banning in the newbies has hacked neverdie’s account
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Who was very rarely stable
Kant, via the categorical imperative, would hold that ontologically this exists only in the imagination.
Shut up
And later come to regret it when barred from Bertie Russell's pub for being annoying.
I frequently try this with my son. Doesn't work at all.
Take the salt. That's the chemical compound. It's the biological, ideal, via image. Is that what salt is to a non-biologist (you are in biology right?). How many will rush to the periodical table? No one says, not me for example, that the periodical table is wrong. It's Kantian objectivity of the first order. The fallibilism upon which science is predicated.
How does that square, though, with any other animal? You have to agree surely ? that the chemical compound discursively written above, in image, is not salt. It is a description, highly accurate, of salt insofar as its chemical composition, within a scientific idiomatic/standard/received, goes? It's highly useful. But that's not what it is (in itself). It cannot be that. For the majority of people who read this thread, how many think of that image when they consume salt? Or, how many rush to a similar definition when they look at the stars? A physicist sees, perhaps, something like you have just shown me but with respect to the cosmos. But is that what it is for everyone? Is that even what it is, fixed, in physics? No.
Nor is that, necessarily, the end of what "salt" is in biology. By definition, there are combinations which yet do not have any data. What is its structure to a snail?
It's the same? That is, if it's the same structure, then why the divergent reaction? Why poison? Because of the snail's essence? But then it's the same thing. The snail-salt-quality. Who says the human ideal of it, via image, is the one that defines its relationship visavis the snail? or the saltflat itself? it's how some humans understand salt, via image, not what "salt" (or any quality) is in itself (necessarily).
You might be taking it, I could be wrong, as a kind of "biology doesn't matter". Which isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying there is a discursive distance, a large one, between any given discipline's definition of any given "Thing" and that thing in itself.
For example, mathematically inclined posters would see the logic, I think, in different ways. @Invictus @Revan etc. Ignoring the God argument entirely, ok, there is simply no, or very little, chance that anyone with rudimentary interest in logic/mathematics can ignore the very basic claim without refuting it. I.e., you have to address the logical structure/conclusion, not the other parts.
or what was salt prior to human existence? evolutionarily speaking? for it pre-exists us, no? therefore what we say it is, in that compound form, for us, cannot be what it is, logically? for that is entirely a human understanding of a quality?
as for Kant. He had a lot of it right. The noumenal exists is the takeaway. Peirce, a Kantian/Hegelian scholar, as it were, said Kant was a confused realist. He was a chemist who rejected the noumenal. The thing is, that Peirce makes no sense unless the noumenal, now proven, via V(X), however you want to test it, it holds, is taken into consideration.
Metaphysics is apriori. When something like V(X) is proven, it has knock on effects for everything. Whatever you think of religion or god, leave them out, analytically? and just consider the logic. Logically, it just holds.
Biology-Element(SALT here)-Biologist = element understood via biological reasoning. But is that all that element is? it can be nothing else? no. for it has a value beyond human consideration of it, necessarily, unless we become solipsists, and that is necessarily X. V(x). Our understanding of it, concept, functional, and then whatever it is in itself. That's just the basic logical structure and it holds.
Tbf, my mistake here is explain a logical/noumenal thing in the context of a general religious discussion and invoke ideas of "religious" zeal or imposition when im just as against that as anyone.
Last edited:
I take it you're on the side of Marx, who is claiming that it's offside.
They should put philosophers in the VAR booth to ponder accidental handballs.
Very easily. I've known people from all sorts of beliefs from Catholics to Hindus, Muslims to Jews, Buddhists to New Agers and none of them had any problem believing in their faith and evolution simultaneously. It's really only the fanatical religious text literalists that have a problem and most people simply believe that evolution is part of the universe along with a version of God or something spiritual. This group encompasses vastly different people I've known from combat veterans to psychedelic-using pacifists and all sorts of regular people in between that simply have some sort of belief in religion or spiritual views. While the terms are not common, many of them essentially have deist or pantheist views of their beliefs and aren't the type of strict religious document literalists. In fact, one time in college, I compared Stephen Hawking's description of the beginning of the universe with the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible and it's actually interesting how closely a metaphorical (not literal) reading of the Bible corresponds with the contemporary view of the Big Bang.
I actually don't think there is any conflict between religion/spirituality and science (Big Bang, evolution, etc) in general despite how aggressive the right-wing fanatics make it. If someone is not a fanatic literalist (and most people I've encountered in real life are not), I don't see any inherent conflict between the views and they are actually quite compatible.
This will go great at my next Halloween party especially with the kids and parents come through the spooky yard show.
Nouma Nouma ye?
Exactly. That is what I mean by Augustine. The non-literal interpretation which is obscured by religious ideology in general.
Mmm.
1st bold, They may accept it easily now, but it was fought against vehemently when introduced as an explanation for the existence of humans and speciation for a reason.
2nd bold, Do they understand the implications of either? Because it is easy to invent your own personal god and then morph your god into the god of the gaps but that is not what those faiths are actually about. It is a terrible mistake to pretend otherwise.
3rd bold, So you compared Hawking's description which would never be premised on the existence of a creator, with a description in the bible which is based on the existence of one, as paramount to everything else in the book genesis is in, and concluded they are both compatible? I suppose they both contain words but after that it drifts apart pretty quickly in the meaning of them.
lastly,
" most people simply believe that evolution is part of the universe along with a version of God or something spiritual"
Most people are right about evolution by natural selection then, which is a specific theory born out by countless observations and confirmed by later discoveries of the mechanisms by which it operates and the huge benefits it brings to human understanding.
Most people are wrong then about the obviously shite ill-defined and spurious " a version of god or something spiritual" which isn't specific and lets face it that is deliberately so , isn't confirmed by anything and brings no benefits and no insight into anything.
At least most people got 50% right.
If they believe in evolution then surely the Adam and Eve story is bunk. Well, at least the part where Eve was made from one of Adams ribs.
And if that’s bunk then it’s not a big stretch to say a lot more of the bible is bunk. Noah’s ark is another tall tale for example.
So, which parts of the bible are true?
And if that’s bunk then it’s not a big stretch to say a lot more of the bible is bunk. Noah’s ark is another tall tale for example.
So, which parts of the bible are true?
The "once upon a time in a land far, far away...." part. I'm just assuming that's how the bible starts.
Good enough to post twice. Who are the groomers?...
I don't think this is relevant. Most people I've talked to have moved well beyond 19th-century views of religion and just because something was controversial then doesn't mean it has to be now.
I think the problem is you are assuming that the only way to look at religion or spirituality is a very strict literal interpretation, which I think is a narrow-minded view. I mean the Pope himself declared there is no incompatibility between believing in evolution and holding a view of faith. People's views have evolved over time and I don't think people who believe in some version of religion or spirituality where they don't self-identify as "atheist" are automatically tied to some beliefs that were held hundreds of years ago or by extreme young earthers. A lot of people I've met simply don't see any contradiction in accepting evolution and the Big Bang and holding religious or spiritual views and I don't think they are inconsistent in any way.
The answers I've heard fall mostly into several categories.
1. The Bible is meant to be metaphorical (some believe parts are meant to be metaphorical) not literal.
2. The Bible was oral history written by people and like any game of telephone, things can get lost in translation.
3. The Bible is meant to be a series of morality stories like many ancient people's parables and fables.
4. Not everything has to be true for there to be core elements of truth in it.
I forgot to mention this question is still only limited things to Christians. As I said, I've met many people of other religions/spiritual traditions as well that accept evolution from Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Native Americans, New Agers, etc. Generally, the thing all the people I've met here have in common is that they are progressive examples of their religion not right-wing hardliners, unsurprisingly considering I've lived mostly in Los Angeles and San Francisco. All of these people mostly tend to come from an "all facets of the same thing" view on different religions where they don't see someone of a different spiritual tradition as "wrong" but they simply believe different versions of the same core universal beliefs.
Harry Potter
Harry Potter
Laugh all you want, fact of the matter is: it worked and that poor woman is now demon-free.
No, I understand that people who need religion/ spirituality in their lives but can't defend the goofy stuff walk back from the worst of it. To me it's all goofy stuff so it makes no difference.