What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

[bruto]

Hi pakeha, I presume your question is addressed to me.

What existence means to me is not a simple thing to explain, as I think about it in conceptual form rather than in language. Basically my position is that if something exists, it takes a form constituted of some kind of substance and is in someway present in respect of other existing things. This form distinguishes the thing or group of things from what its or their none existence (or absence) would constitute.

The detail might need teasing out a bit.

OK, I think I understand this, despite the odd wording. But what you seem to be saying is that you apply William James's famous criterion for existence, which is (loosely) that if a thing cannot be said to exist if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works. So are you applying this rule to things divine, and if so, what effects can you demonstrate?

 

[dafydd]

In the acknowledgement that what exists may not conform to our notions about things, including logic or the laws of thermodynamics. I. Or if falling within those ideas as potentially independent of the known SPC, in which we experience our existence.

A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?

 

[bruto]

A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?

No no, you must take your punshhhment like a man.

 

[dafydd]

No no, you must take your punshhhment like a man.

Very good. Punshhhment. I like being tickled by feather dusters. (Did you spot my deliberate typo)?

 

[punshhh]

OK, I think I understand this, despite the odd wording. But what you seem to be saying is that you apply William James's famous criterion for existence, which is (loosely) that if a thing cannot be said to exist if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works. So are you applying this rule to things divine, and if so, what effects can you demonstrate?

My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy.

Yes that idea is similar to my position, although I would alter it slightly, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to that which exists". This presumes that something exists to begin with. As to what I would regard as a "difference", if something were constituted of a substance, that would be sufficient and it would not matter if it was independent of our SPC* including the laws of physics.

Regarding divinity, I don't recognize divinity as generally discussed on this forum here. Although I may be considering something approximating in some way to "divinity".


*SPC=spacetime continuum.

 

[punshhh]

A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?

I am quite happy to let you point out typo's until you become bored of it.

Are you confining existence just to what humanity is aware of?

 

[dafydd]

I am quite happy to let you point out typo's until you become bored of it.

Are you confining existence just to what humanity is aware of?

How do you know that there are things behind existence that we we are not aware of? Why does there have to be something? No apostrophe needed in the plural of typo, by the way. The apostrophe indicates possessiveness.

 

[laca]

My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy.

No, it doesn't sound odd, it's unadulterated, unintelligible gibberish. And it's not because you "have got to this point independently of academic philosophy". It's because the Dunning-Kruger effect. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't realize that sad fact.

 

[dafydd]

No, it doesn't sound odd, it's unadulterated, unintelligible gibberish. And it's not because you "have got to this point independently of academic philosophy". It's because the Dunning-Kruger effect. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't realize that sad fact.

And that post was written by the man who once accused me of posting gibberish!

conceptual [kənˈsɛptjʊəl]
adj
1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract
2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts.

Punshhh separated conceptual from language. Language is closely bound up with the conceptual.

 

[Myriad]

Here's where I look for common ground:

- The material universe is all there is.
- Our subjective experiences are all we have.

Most skeptics understand both those things as true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the second. Most mystics understand both those things are true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the first.

There is no reality deeper than reality. Reality is what it is. What there might be is a better model -- that is, an alteration of our understanding of (which is part of our subjective experience of) reality that conforms better to reality. (We can only tell that a model conforms better by observing that it predicts cause and effect better.) Or there might not be.

Some things that most people used to think were aspects of the external universe turned out to actually be aspects of subjective experience, and vice versa. At one time, searching for a particle of musical inspiration would have seemed no less (and no more) plausible than searching for a particle of disease. Now we have those two things more confidently sorted between the material and the subjective.

But things don't become less important when they're suspected of being, or revealed to be, aspects of subjective experience. When a lunatic massacres children, it's not a lack of understanding of how bullets work that we bemoan.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bruto]

My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy.

Yes that idea is similar to my position, although I would alter it slightly, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to that which exists". This presumes that something exists to begin with. As to what I would regard as a "difference", if something were constituted of a substance, that would be sufficient and it would not matter if it was independent of our SPC* including the laws of physics.

Regarding divinity, I don't recognize divinity as generally discussed on this forum here. Although I may be considering something approximating in some way to "divinity".


*SPC=spacetime continuum.

Well, you've lost me again in what looks like an inherent bit of contradiction. The test is of what a thing does, not of what it is.

 

[punshhh]

And that post was written by the man who once accused me of posting gibberish!

conceptual [kənˈsɛptjʊəl]
adj
1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract
2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts.

Punshhh separated conceptual from language. Language is closely bound up with the conceptual.

So when I look at a beautiful woman there are lots of words going round in my head are there?

 

[punshhh]

Well, you've lost me again in what looks like an inherent bit of contradiction. The test is of what a thing does, not of what it is.

Let me put that another way, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works".

Where world refers not only to the world known to humanity, but also the aspects of the world not known by humanity.


And I am an is person, not a does person.

 

[punshhh]

Here's where I look for common ground:

- The material universe is all there is.
- Our subjective experiences are all we have.

Most skeptics understand both those things as true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the second. Most mystics understand both those things are true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the first.

Hi Myriad, yes that rings true. For me though I do focus on the significance of material. I prefer the word substance, as the word material has connotations of physical matter as described by physics. By the use of the word substance I am also considering material other than what is described by physics.

There is no reality deeper than reality. Reality is what it is. What there might be is a better model -- that is, an alteration of our understanding of (which is part of our subjective experience of) reality that conforms better to reality. (We can only tell that a model conforms better by observing that it predicts cause and effect better.) Or there might not be

.Quite, I am a collector of conceptual models.

Some things that most people used to think were aspects of the external universe turned out to actually be aspects of subjective experience, and vice versa. At one time, searching for a particle of musical inspiration would have seemed no less (and no more) plausible than searching for a particle of disease. Now we have those two things more confidently sorted between the material and the subjective.

Yes, although there is still some confusion over where the line is drawn in the brain.

But things don't become less important when they're suspected of being, or revealed to be, aspects of subjective experience. When a lunatic massacres children, it's not a lack of understanding of how bullets work that we bemoan.

I regard the content of the subjective a substance too.

 

[bruto]

Let me put that another way, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works".

Where world refers not only to the world known to humanity, but also the aspects of the world not known by humanity.


And I am an is person, not a does person.

So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.

 

[dafydd]

So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.

Punshhh's ideas about ''substances unknown to physics'' is pure fiction. Substances unknown to physics and unknown unknowns cannot be created with a mere wave of the computer keyboard.

 

[laca]

And I am an is person, not a does person.

That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.

 

[dafydd]

That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.

Mysticism doesn't do clear and concise. It just is mumbo-jumbo.

 

[punshhh]

So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.

If your looking for proofs of a spirit world I cannot help you. Short of conducting a death experiment to see what happens next, it is untestable. There are other ways, but they are not scientific (in the classical sense).

and whose effect on the world we do know is nil

Interesting phrase.

I wonder what does not have an effect on the world?

and in what sense we do know there are nil effects (from anything) on the world?


You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down.

 

[punshhh]

That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.

I am always glad to provide some amusement where I can. I find this whole language thing hilarious too.