Quote from: (oYo) on December 09, 2014, 08:27:36 PM

Quote from: the joint on December 09, 2014, 06:40:36 PM

Quote from: darkota on December 09, 2014, 03:59:06 PM

Quote from: the joint on December 09, 2014, 03:53:23 PM

Quote from: Cortex7 on December 09, 2014, 03:28:50 AM

Quote from: Coincoin256 on December 08, 2014, 06:05:32 PM

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...? no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable. Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit: Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post. Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know." It's a *huge* difference. Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature.

It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known."

It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.).

You make these statements based on logic (and there's little doubt you are very intelligent), but have you considered the possibility that an omnipotent being is beyond logic? In the same way a worm does not have the capacity to understand the stock market, it is impossible for us to truly understand an omnipotent being. It's my understanding that you hold the position that if we follow a scientific method (ie. Metatron's Cube) god will eventually be revealed, because you believe god follows and is bound by this method. I'm suggesting that a truly omnipotent being doesn't and isn't. The mysteries of this entire (observable) universe may or may not be revealed by such a method, but I very much doubt it can ever reveal what is unobservable, whether it be outside of this universe, or what came before and after its existence.

This is why being agnostic makes perfect sense. (Meaning, God is unknowable.) Unless, you are one of the many believers that believe god gave us "His Word" as is written in the Bible, Koran, etc., then you can decide to be for god (ie. Christian) or against (ie. Satanist). Otherwise, you are left with atheism or anti-theism. Of all these positions on god, it's obvious that only the (correct) believers (that are worthy and on god's side) can truly know god, because god said so.

Great post. First, let me briefly reference the emboldened passages:

1) Not only have I considered the possibility of an omnipotent entity that is "beyond logic," but I'm knowingly asserting my position in direct contrast to this possibility. Furthermore, I held onto an agnostic position for a long time until further exploration suggested to me that the position is untenable. I went from playing along with Roman Catholicism as a child, to atheism, to agnosticism, to a blend of agnosticism and East Asian religious philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, etc.), to complete open-mindedness, and now I've settled as a monistic theist.

2) I appreciate that you tried to clarify and understand my position, because it's inaccurate. I do not believe God can ever be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning. Even if we do not start with any presuppositions about God (because we shouldn't, else we put the cart before the horse), we already know right off the bat that inductive reasoning lacks the scope necessary to formulate absolute statements about reality at the highest possible level of generality. Inductive reasoning fails because a presupposition about God would need to preclude any absolute statements made about such an entity. In other words, we would need to somehow know absolutely what God is before finding any evidence to support that presupposition. Obviously, this creates a huge problem, so we need a way to avoid the problem altogether.

Stemming from these two points, first we need to consider what is relevant to us, and perhaps the best way to identify what is relevant is to first identify which is irrelevant. Specifically, things that are unreal or illogical are of no relevance to us because there is absolutely no possible way to make sense out of them. If something were 'real' enough outside of reality so as to have an impact on it, then it would need to be inside reality. Similarly, reality would be completely unintelligible if it weren't logical, and the fact that we all observe and interact with a stable Universe demonstrates that reality is inherently logical.

Now, let's focus on your phrasing when you talk about the possibility of an entity that is "beyond logic." This is where things get fun. Really fun. And really, really cool.

You could say that, in a sense, logic itself is beyond logic. What I mean by this is that logic is holographic in structure. I'm not sure how familiar you are with holograms, but if you take a piece of holographic film and you cut a corner from it, e.g. 25%, the result is not a corner that reveals 25% of the original image, but rather you have 100% of the image at 1/4 size. Logic is similar. There are all kinds logical systems that vary according to scale, and although the sizes of these different systems vary, the logical properties governing all of them are the same.

When we observe something, the logic and rules of observation (i.e. at a higher level) relate to the observed conditions (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational (remember, root word = ratio), statements about that relation. Similarly, when we engage in metacognition, the logic and rules of metacognition (i.e. at a higher level) relate to various abstract objects of cognition (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational statements about that relation, too.

The point I'm making is that we already have insight into how something 'beyond logic' works. However, I would just clarify that it's not quite accurate to say 'beyond logic,' but rather it might be more accurate to say something like, "There exist logical systems of lower order that are necessitated by logical systems of higher order."

If you're having trouble understanding what I mean by all of this, I'll refer you to an illustrative analogy I've used several times on this forum to demonstrate the point: Imagine that we, as 3rd-dimensional beings, want to know what the 4th dimension is like. As 3D beings, we are limited by certain logical boundaries that define the 3rd dimension, so how can we know what the 4th dimension is like? Well, what we can do is we can draw something like a tesseract, a 4th-dimensional object, on a 2nd-dimensional plane of paper. But, similar to the problem of induction I spoke of earlier, how can we know that a tesseract is a sound model of a 4th-dimensional object? Wouldn't that require that we invoke a presupposition of what a 4th-dimensional object is like before we've evidenced it?

As it turns out, when we draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, we are actually removing ourselves from the constraints of our 3rd-dimensional perspective, and instead we assume the perspective of a 5th-dimensional entity. That is, we assume a 5d perspective and talk about the 4th dimension in the same way that we, as 3d beings, can fully explore and understand the logic of the 2nd-dimension. All spatial dimensions are the same in their logical constructs (e.g. the 3rd-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 2d phenomena, the 4th-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 3d phenomena, etc.), but they vary according to scope.

To wrap up this post, notice how spatial dimensions are all logical constructs, but each successive dimension is *infinitely* greater than the previous one. This should provide you with some insight into how we can gain insight into something (God?) that is infinitely greater than we or the logical system(s) we inhabit.

Edit: Oh, I guess I should clarify what my actual position is. My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions. I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods. I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization.