I am 100% sure there are no gods, all man made, so fuck that premise!
do you have evidence to support your argument?
@MsDemeanourall gods were all created by humans, plain observation of history, go as far back as you want, all the way back to the paleolithic about 200,000 years BCE, who had bear idols, fertility idols, go through the neanderthals about 100,000 years BCE with more figurines of deities, the sumerians, the egyptians, the greek, all created their own versions of gods, which were many the basis for the creation of the jewish god, and so on and so on, until the more modern religious crap invented by men, like the mormons, the scientologists, etcetera, all man made, all of them without exception. That is my incontrovertible evidence. Do you have evidence to prove me wrong?
Interesting debate. W.r.t. absolute truth: I trust my gut. It roils when it comes close to absolute truth believers.
Provisional certainty that men created gods is valid until a god demonstrates otherwise. Belief is not synonymous with knowledge. I can believe this, I might be wrong, and I would adjust my position 8n the light of good evidence. There is no invocation of deity in this position, so it is not religious at all.
@TaylorWalston -- True enough when employing the narrow definition of religious, but other connotations of the word suggest holding to ideas in spite of evidence, being rigid in one's stance, unyielding, intransigent, rigid adherence to schedules/habits. Holding absolute ideas.
@evidentialist That's why I emphasize provisional certainty. Rigidly holding to one's stance in the face of a terrific onslaught of bad evidence, should be admired. The problem is when you get labeled with all the baggage you are mentioning while attempting to demonstrate why the evidence is bad, overstated, and often misleading. So we have to be careful about accepting this as valid criticism, when the desired goal is to get you to accept that same bad evidence because.. well... maybe.
it isnt Unknown God for nothing either, i am fairly convinced
How about this one:
I am absolutely convinced you are right.
The devil made me do it.
I don't think any absolutes exist outside mathematics.
I am not even convinced that absolutes exist there either.
@Archeus_Lore You have a point: someone says 2+2=4 and I say what do you mean by 2? What do you mean by +? What do you mean by =? What do you mean by 4? These are not trivial questions when you look into it. You can spend an entire lecture defining zero (my lecturer did, and even then he may have simplified it a bit).
@K9Kohle789 Yes, it is semantics. It doesn't matter in everyday life. But it's important if you want a deeper understanding of mathematics.
Okay, so in your opinion "absolutes do NOT exist outside mathematics" correct?
Then what about Physics for example?
How about Newton's Laws of Motion for example?
And, how about the forces and actions of Gravity for yet another example?
Lets us, for a moment consider Gravity, that force that keeps everything on this planet from merely drifting off through the atmosphere and into space.
I drop a 5 kilogram Lead ball from a height of 30 feet above the ground, there are no obstructions to hinder what ever progress it makes BUT it falls directly towards the ground below, i.e. the Absolute reaction of one smaller body being attracted by the Gravitation force exerted by a larger body upon the smaller one.
Yes, chances are that the Lead ball will REBOUND upon impact BUT only to a certain and small degree simply because, and here comes yet another ABSOLUTE btw, the Inertial energy stored within the Lead ball is converted to Kinetic energy at impact thus producing the recoil/rebound effect.
@bbyrd009 The gravitation effects of an object are greater in a kind of equilibrium with the size, weight and dimensions of the object that exerts its gravitational pull, etc.
Ergo gravity does cause time and space to 'wrap' just as would the surface of a cup of water be 'warped' when an object, a stone for example, is held, suspended, and just slightly touching the surface of the water.
But that does NOT mean that gravity/gravitational attraction does NOT exist between objects, for example, the moon exerts its much weaker gravitational pull on the water covering the seas and oceans thus influencing the tides, the gravitational pull of Earth tries to keep the moon from flying off into space BUT the moon's gravitational force also tries to negate the pull of Earth's gravity hence every so often the moon moves just a few centimetres further away from the Earth and has been doings so for millennia and will continue to do so.
@Coffeo Firstly, do a wee bit of checking because,
A) The Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth as PROVEN by the N.A.S.A. via the usage of a Laser and a reflective surface placed on the moon by the Apollo missions.
E.g. the Laser is fired from an independent Observatory, timed and the resultant return ( reflection) time is recorded and then the distance is calculated. This HAS been going on since the late 70's btw.
And YES, the Moon, just like the Earth, varies in its relative distance/s from the sun as with the Earth and the Moon with the Earth in its orbit around the Earth.
B) The Moon affects tides as does the Sun and also the juxta-positioning of both the Sun and Moon creates tidal effects on the oceans and seas.
C) As we humans discover more and more about the nature of the Universe from we evolved, Yes we are discovering newer and interesting things in regards to gravity, which is great news btw, BUT the very basics of Gravity will always remain the same in that it is a force of attraction between objects, be the huge and massive or as small as grains of dust.
Is absolutely believing that I exist a bad thing?
@indirect76 -- If holding such an idea can be shown with adequate rigor to be irrational, the judgment of its irrationality is one thing. Once having determined an idea is irrational, the judgment whether it is bad or good is quite another and adequate evidence of its qualities related to the culture must again be presented. Since such an idea is completely personal, it is not my position to judge its qualities. Whether valid is left to science to discover. So far, it appears you might be right in your assessment.
A lot of people give all sorts of complex answers to the question. What is the difference between scientific truth and philosophy, and religious ? Including all sorts of things like falsifiable hypotheses, and the experimental method etc.
But I think the real bottom line difference, is very simply. That one believes that truth is a given, an absolute and a granted privilege. (For the chosen few.) And the other believes that you only get closer to it, by work care and effort.
Excellent quote! As Karl Popper observed, all knowledge is provisional and subject to future revision. We can never finally prove scientific theories. Along with the concept of falsifiability, provisional knowledge separates science from religion.
Yes and No, since, imo, one can be completely certain that any and all Gods/Goddesses, etc, for example, are the products of the human mind and nothing else.
However in the realms of the Sciences such as Physics, etc, things can and do change as further researches and more evidences come to light.
However, stating that any person who has absolutes in their mind must, therefore, have joined the ranks of the religious is incorrect since religions cannot any will not change ever.
They scrape and scrabble through the dusts of centuries passed to eke out evidence that will prove them correct and yet scream like scalded cats the very second their 'evidence/s' are put under the microscope and examined in detail.
There are absolutes in life, etc, one being that everyone will die at some time in their span of life, whether it be from natural causes, etc, etc, no-one knows for certain, BUT, it will happen and that is ABSOLUTE.
@Triphid -- I understand what you're saying, but that's not what is meant in the post.
"...ranks of the religious is incorrect since religions cannot an[y] will not change..." is what is meant by absolutes. Anyone who holds any ideas in their head as absolute has indeed joined the ranks, because absolutes are not subject to change. I'll state it another way: If one holds an idea with great confidence but amends that idea with the arrival of new evidence, then that idea that was held in great confidence was not an absolute. It was subject to change.
One of the questions I like to ask believers when they want to engage with me is, "Is it remotely possible that what you believe is wrong?" Their response sets the tone for the encounter. If they say no, the conversation is over. If they say yes, we have room for discussion.
@evidentialist Well now, try to see it from my side if you can.
After the best part of a Decade of studying Theology and Comparative Modern Religions, I gained my ThD.
I started studying as a Life-long Atheist, remained an Atheist all the way through and am still an Atheist.
Why, you may ask?
Well,
@Triphid -- I have no trouble understanding your position. Mine is similar, but with a nuance to keep it honest. You see, lack of evidence says nothing specific. Though through my studies and experiences over my life I have failed to find anyone or anything that provided real evidence regarding the deity the believers rale about, I must also realize that I do not know all there is to know, that I could be wrong. Now, in spite of the fact that I think the odds of my being wrong about this are infinitesimal, there must remain that element of doubt. Not the kind of doubt that upsets my dinner, curdles my milk, or even gives me reason for pause, but that sliver of doubt that makes my position rational and not rigidly religious.
I'm absolutely certain about the true nature of time and space.
@gater -- You, sir, belong to a large group. That group, of course, quite likely has as many different ideas about the true nature of time and space as there are electrons in the Universe. I, unfortunately, do not have sufficient knowledge to be certain of the true nature of time and space -- or much of anything else, for that matter. My quest is to attain such a stature, but I have not yet arrived.
Everything not science and as such there can be absolutes. For example, roses absolutely come in different colors.
The above is a simple illustration but proves absolutes exit.
@Alienbeing -- Sorry, but the colors of roses are subject to change. Not that they will change in your lifetime, but change they will. You may see them as absolute for your time and space, but they are not absolute. As witness to that, many of the colors we see in roses have been introduced through breeding. Anything subject to change is not absolute. There are indeed some constants in science, but they are few.
@evidentialist Try to read with comprehension. I never said or implied colors don't change I SAID all colors exist. That is the absolute.
@Alienbeing -- lol ... What you said had nothing to do with colors exist. You have also misconstrued with what is said both in the meme and its introduction. The absolutes referred to are ideas, not things. For example, in dealing with things it can be said with accuracy that we are absolutely all essentially empty-headed. It cannot be said with accuracy that we are all stupid, which deals the thought and function. When it comes to ideas, the statement, "There are ghosts," begs the person making such declaration provide evidence. That is the nature of skepticism. On the other hand, holding to the idea that there are ghosts in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an absolute of the type to which I refer. If one cannot allow the possibility that this idea may not be true, than that person holds the idea religiously as an absolute.
@evidentialist lol all you want to, I proved my point, your inability to understand or your stubbornness is irrelevant.
Fade away to stop illustrating your ability to be strange.
mmmm a bit like the Black Lives Matter, where, despite statistical evidence to the contrary (check out the Roland Fryer studies) people continue to fanatically believe the narrative. If we stop examining the research we are no different from the religious. [quillette.com]
Bit of a stretch to pull those two ideas into the same barn, but yeah.
Absolutes and certainty exists at a particular time and a particular level of technological developments. Occasionally new technology allows us to amend those absolutes in a more precise manner.
The speed of light was once thought to be an absolute, but is being challenged given new more accurate and precise methods of measurements.
The only thing that I am aware that is absolutely absolute is pi. You can take it out to a million decimal places, but it is still 3.14
@t1nick -- If something can be amended, it is not an absolute. For example, I would very much like to see our species spread through the galaxy. If I set out to do that tomorrow, I am doomed to fail, but that in no way says that if someone sets out to do that a couple of hundred years into the future is doomed to the same failure. Not an absolute.
I know the definition of absolute. A few physics standards are thought to be absolutes. But as I posited above, some of those phydics absolutes are conditionally absolute. Lol
The Flat and Young Earthers are jumping up and down...