is God male or female?

[DoesntMatter]

Yeah I know that's different from philosophy. My dad actually takes the argument that you and Gribble are taking (my mom doesn't care). But philosophy is also a subject for people who actually have sex lives. Far more so than chem

[Gribble]

Dude. Not everybody who studies literature is like that. Many are. Some of us, however, study Machiavelli.

I don't often agree with you, but I do agree in that case. I'd damn my soul to hell and betray my heritage for my children, and I don't give a damn about any man who wouldn't.

[DoesntMatter]

I'd damn my soul to hell and betray my heritage for my children, and I don't give a damn about any man who wouldn't.

lmao yeah I know

[IndiReloaded]

My two cents re: philosophy courses.

DM, I was forced to take a philosophy course as a graduate student as part of a 'medical ethics' requirement. It was awful. The instructor had no idea how to teach to students with mathematics background & we spent waaaay more time going over things like venn diagrams more for her benefit than ours, lol.

Personally, I think the value of a philosophy course would be best in a students early undergraduate career (i.e. first year). Once you start doing things like advanced calculus & number theory, you're well beyond any logic that a basic philosophy course could teach you.

That said, I read a LOT of philosophy books on my own time in graduate school & beyond, so I'm not saying the ideas don't have value. I especially enjoyed reading about argumentation; the logical ideas themselves won't be new to you, but you'll learn the the terms for what the hell they are talking about.

[IndiReloaded]

My God. There's an ad for a Scientology video channel on this page. LOLOL! That made my freaking day!

Even space aliens would be embarrassed to call Tom Cruise one of their own.

[Mish]

This argument is soooo old. Mish & I were over this ages ago in a recent thread (look up the thread). The final conclusion (the same one Russell, Dawkins, et al arrived at) is that you can't rationalize belief. Its apples & oranges. Those who try just end up looking like idiots.

I think you can't rationalize beliefs, it's true. Yet at the same time, we live our lives mostly through beliefs regardless of who we are Religious people or atheists. There are few things in this world which are completly and absolutely provable truth. Our way of life is mostly based on hunches, instinct, guessing, hope, joy, anger, fear and faith. Our real choice is mostly whose system of illusions we want to buy into.

[Gribble]

There are things in life which have evidence to support them. For any other circumstance under the sun you and every other intelligent person out there requires some kind of supportive evidence. It may not be much, but you need something. Lightning. What causes it? At some point you read a science book that explained it. Did you ever bother to research lightning in depth? Ever feel the need to actively run tests and experiments? It's enough that you see lightning, that it's explained and proven by qualified people, and if you really want to, it's entirely possible to follow their procedures yourself.

There is nothing when it comes to gods. What if a scientist presented a theory with nothing to support it other than faith, emotion and personal experiences?

[IndiReloaded]

I think you can't rationalize beliefs, it's true. Yet at the same time, we live our lives mostly through beliefs

Not me. I live my life through hypotheses. Things with predictive value of varying degrees. That's quite different from belief, Mish, we went over this idea before, I thought you understood the difference? Its what Gribble said about there being *some* level of predictive data about things that aren't purely belief-based (like God/deity, etc).

Its why you can't rationalize belief (you CAN rationalize hypotheses, however, just some better than others).

Just as a reminder (you know b/c you read the book), Dawkins takes the stance that the existence of God IS a hypothesis, which is why he can successfully argue that's its (based on available data) probably a wrong one.

Religions need to stop trying to market their beliefs to sound like a scientific hypothesis (I also said this before). If they did that, then we'd all be able to at least agree to disagree.

[Mish]

Not me. I live my life through hypotheses. Things with predictive value of varying degrees.

How often do you use these hypotheses in your every day life Indi? Do you use them to predict the weather for instance or do you trust what the weather beareu tells you and go with it? If the later that's a form of belief, that someone else will provide you with hopefuly relaible information. Do you use hypotheses to predict what the traffic will be like in the morning based on raw data and statistical traffic calculations or do you trust what the road authority tells you? If the later that's a form of belief.

Our life is saturated with beliefs in one way or another and majority of our predictions are outsourced to others whom we trust to provide us with reliable information. Sure there are difference on how that information is found, it doesn't change the fact that we spend majority of our life believing. We don't have enough time on this planet for it to be any other way.

[IndiReloaded]

How often do you use these hypotheses in your every day life Indi? Do you use them to predict the weather for instance or do you trust what the weather beareu tells you and go with it?

Why, all the time, Mish.

My actions re: weather is based on hypothesis, yes. I can make reasonable predictions *based on past data*. I have learned that the local weather office is reasonably accurate esp when combined with my own knowledge about what to expect this time of year & what my barometer is telling me (weather is a bad example to choose for a sailor, Mish).

That's not at all the same as belief w/o *any* supporting data, Mish. Apples & oranges again.

[Mish]

Why, all the time, Mish.

My actions re: weather is based on hypothesis, yes. I can make reasonable predictions *based on past data*. I have learned that the local weather office is reasonably accurate esp when combined with my own knowledge about what to expect this time of year & what my barometer is telling me (weather is a bad example to choose for a sailor, Mish).

That's not at all the same as belief w/o *any* supporting data, Mish. Apples & oranges again.

You may think they are reasonably accurate, but to someone who works in the field there are gross miscalculations and false predictions made all the time. Maybe you are just not sensitive enough to notice them or it doesn't really affect you that much to pay a lot of attention to it.

The fact remains though, you outsource responsibility of weather predictions to weather bureau on daily basis. There might be a weather Goebeles working for the weather bureau you trust who deliberately miscalculates the weather patterns and you won't know the difference because you have learnt to believe them. This is just one example. There are many that would come out if I was to analyze you behaviour patterns and how you go about your daily business

[IndiReloaded]

I'm not disputing potential inaccuracies. All hypotheses have them. Nevertheless, Mish, it is still a *testable* hypothesis (the hallmark of all hypotheses & theories), one that allows review & refinement. Either it rains or it doesn't. Either it snows or it doesn't. Either they can predict these with some level of accuracy I am prepared to accept (80, 90%, whatever) or they can't. This is something belief in God is not (testable). That is the difference. Science & belief-based religion = apples & oranges, that is all I am saying. Same as before.

Anyway, we've been over this & the arguments haven't changed. Dawkins (and many others) has said this in a variety of ways. Or are you now going to argue in favour of the 'God Hypothesis'? Dawkins debunked that pretty well in his book, I thought.

If someone could show to me the existence of any 'God' with 80 or 90% accuracy (or even 20%, hell, even 5% if it was reproducible), I'd be pretty happy to accept the existence of God. It would become a believable hypothesis to me. Sadly, noone has been able to do that. And its been a looooong ongoing experiment.

We've been here before & you understood these points before, so I'm going to leave this to Gribble or someone else to comment on further if they wish.

[Mish]

I'm not disputing potential inaccuracies. All hypotheses have them. Nevertheless, Mish, it is still a *testable* hypothesis (the hallmark of all hypotheses & theories), one that allows review & refinement. Either it rains or it doesn't. Either it snows or it doesn't. Either they can predict these with some level of accuracy I am prepared to accept (80, 90%, whatever) or they can't. This is something belief in God is not (testable). That is the difference. Science & belief-based religion = apples & oranges, that is all I am saying. Same as before.

I'm not disputing what is testable and untestable Indi. I'm just stating the fact that which ever way you would like to view it, we still live our lives mostly through beliefs regardless of who we are Religious people or atheists. Our real choice is which systems we put our faith into. Something to think about

[IndiReloaded]

Actually, Mish, I think the problem is with the word 'belief'.

It isn't a very precise word. If you look it up, it has several meanings. One definition uses the word 'trust' or something 'accepted as true' by a group of people.

However, another definition uses the term 'validity', which has a very precise meaning for a scientist. THAT word refers to a logical argument, where one can derive a conclusion logically.

While the former definition may work for religious belief, it definitely falls flat on its face for the latter. If you insist on claiming I use 'belief' in my life (a word usage I protest) then it would have to be the latter sort for me. I use the word 'hypothesis' because it more correctly describes how I think about things.

Anyway, I've been working late & I've just finished. Its faaaaar past my bedtime. I'm done thinking for this day/night/whatever it is.

[Mish]

Actually, Mish, I think the problem is with the word 'belief'.

It isn't a very precise word. If you look it up, it has several meanings. One definition uses the word 'trust' or something 'accepted as true' by a group of people.

However, another definition uses the term 'validity', which has a very precise meaning for a scientist. THAT word refers to a logical argument, where one can derive a conclusion logically.

While the former definition may work for religious belief, it definitely falls flat on its face for the latter. If you insist on claiming I use 'belief' in my life (a word usage I protest) then it would have to be the latter sort for me. I use the word 'hypothesis' because it more correctly describes how I think about things.

Anyway, I've been working late & I've just finished. Its faaaaar past my bedtime. I'm done thinking for this day/night/whatever it is.

I think that when you truly look deep down into yourself and ask yourself "How much of information given to me I follow blindly and without question because I believe it's true" you will find out that both the first and second are permanent part of your daily experience.

I'm not using this to justify Religion by the way, I'm just stating the facts of how we operate as humans

Sweet dreams Indi, don't work so late