My ramblings on truth and grey area's.

[Memammal]

The thread is kind of an exercise in if you had to take a guess, what do you think is the most likely the truth of our existence.

Well it is your thread, but don't you think it is best to stay true to the truth..?

[Scotty99]

Well it is your thread, but don't you think it is best to stay true to the truth..?

Well the thread is titled ramblings, am i not allowed to do that on a philosophy section? I just cannot fully understand why you feel the desire to give me advice, can you elaborate a bit on why you feel that is necessary?

 

I think a lot of you believe i have an agenda of some sort, NOTHING could be farther from the truth. I am honestly just spit balling here, tossing out ideas from different places that i feel we dont have a full grasp of understanding and stitching them together in a way that makes sense in my head. The only time ive ever been to church is for a wedding or a funeral, and while i have no problem with people living their lives for a religion if they feel it betters them, i dont believe that any of them have the origin story of our creator correct.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scotty99

[Memammal]

Well the thread is titled ramblings, am i not allowed to do that on a philosophy section? I just cannot fully understand why you feel the desire to give me advice, can you elaborate a bit on why you feel that is necessary?

Uhmm, I am not sure that a philosophy section on a science forum gives one the freedom to contemplate untruths with the aim to question their validity (like geocentrism, which is scientifically flawed and somewhat outdated).

 

i dont believe that any of them have the origin story of our creator correct.

Yep, I agree with you on this one.

[Strange]

The thread is kind of an exercise in if you had to take a guess, what do you think is the most likely the truth of our existence.

 

 

Why take a guess, when you can use evidence?

~I believe in a creator, but i am not a fan of religions ...

 

 

Can you explain the difference between believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (most religions) and believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (you)?

[Phi for All]

The only time ive ever been to church is for a wedding or a funeral, and while i have no problem with people living their lives for a religion if they feel it betters them, i dont believe that any of them have the origin story of our creator correct.

 

Are you saying that you know they don't know? How does that work?

 

All ideas with no evidence are unsupported, and therefore equal. No religion has presented evidence that can't be refuted, so any stories about a creator are equally unsupported, whether they come from "them" or you.

[Scotty99]

 

 

Why take a guess, when you can use evidence?

 

 

Can you explain the difference between believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (most religions) and believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (you)?

 

We have evidence there isn't a creator? And i have went over the second part many times, i feel a creator is a basic knowledge we have lost to time, and our current religions may or may not be tiny remnants of that lost knowledge. I just feel that our current religions cannot be true because of how they divide everyone, i think the truth would be one that brings people together.

 

Are you saying that you know they don't know? How does that work?

 

All ideas with no evidence are unsupported, and therefore equal. No religion has presented evidence that can't be refuted, so any stories about a creator are equally unsupported, whether they come from "them" or you.

Like above, the main reason i feel none of them have it right is the nature of religions currently. Sure its possible we had many creators, but even if that is true why does it divide people as much as it does? The last survey i read of the US said something like half believe in god half dont. My idea of a creator would bring people together, and i think that is how it was in the not so distant past.

[Phi for All]

We have evidence there isn't a creator?

We have none to support one's existence. It isn't that there is no God, it's that there's no evidence for one.

 

And i have went over the second part many times, i feel a creator is a basic knowledge we have lost to time, and our current religions may or may not be tiny remnants of that lost knowledge. I just feel that our current religions cannot be true because of how they divide everyone, i think the truth would be one that brings people together.

Basing these beliefs on incredulous feelings is probably exactly how these religions were formed in the first place.

 

"The next village over got flooded, but we're safe. I can't believe there isn't a magic sky god watching over us!"

[Scotty99]

We have none to support one's existence. It isn't that there is no God, it's that there's no evidence for one.

 

Basing these beliefs on incredulous feelings is probably exactly how these religions were formed in the first place.

 

"The next village over got flooded, but we're safe. I can't believe there isn't a magic sky god watching over us!"

Well strange asked why take a guess when you can use evidence, there is no evidence either way as to a creator existing. And i really am not using feelings here lol, i just think that the knowledge we lost is one that would be so strong that no one would be questioning it, it would be inherent to everyone. Again there is no way i can speculate as to how, but i just believe we all KNEW we had a creator in the past. I think this is part of the reason we have not discovered anything would we consider technology in ancient digsites, the knowledge of a creator was so deep they had a better understanding on how to live life and what was important.

 

Let me also go a little nutty if you will, as for my "i cant speculate as to how" above. Imagine for a second, part of that knowledge we lost included something that would can see and use, what if we had the knowledge of harnessing energy that we could not even fathom today. I cannot remember where i heard this suggested, but one idea that sticks out in my head is that ancient people had an understanding of sound that could have been used to move the immense objects that they were moving regularly back in those days. Again i dont want to get into specifics about this, but one thing i do believe is that the reason we see all of these gigantic ancient structures scattered around the world is that it was easy for them. I do believe it was POSSIBLE it could have been done with our current theories but those were not EASY. I feel for the amount of structures on this planet and our theories about what kind of time period they were completed in, that it was EASY. Rollers ropes are manpower are plausible, but not EASY. Could that not be a part of the lost knowledge and how people found it so easy to collectively believe in a creator? Again lol, just spitballing here.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scotty99

[Phi for All]

i just think that the knowledge we lost is one that would be so strong that no one would be questioning it, it would be inherent to everyone.

 

Given that we have no evidence for a god(s), and given that you think this knowledge would have been unquestionable if it existed, isn't it more likely that it never existed?

[Scotty99]

 

Given that we have no evidence for a god(s), and given that you think this knowledge would have been unquestionable if it existed, isn't it more likely that it never existed?

I have a nutty example above, but my guess is that it wasnt leap of faith kind of stuff, it was stuff that could be witnessed or felt or whatever. It would take something that powerful to accomplish what i am suggesting.

[Phi for All]

I have a nutty example above, but my guess is that it wasnt leap of faith kind of stuff, it was stuff that could be witnessed or felt or whatever. It would take something that powerful to accomplish what i am suggesting.

 

It's a popular theme, but are there any real-life examples of knowledge we used to have but no longer possess? I'm not talking about the arguments from incredulity where you can't imagine how the pyramids were built, so you assume that knowledge was somehow lost. I'm talking about quantifiable processes that we can no longer reproduce because we somehow "lost" the knowledge of how to do it.

[Scotty99]

 

It's a popular theme, but are there any real-life examples of knowledge we used to have but no longer possess? I'm not talking about the arguments from incredulity where you can't imagine how the pyramids were built, so you assume that knowledge was somehow lost. I'm talking about quantifiable processes that we can no longer reproduce because we somehow "lost" the knowledge of how to do it.

If it was lost, not sure how i could give an example? About your "popular theme" remark, is it actually? Like, what about what i said above is a popular theme? And ancient structures are only a part of all of this for me, when i say lost knowledge i mean more so of a creator, its just possible we also have lost knowledge when it comes to the how and why of said structures.

[Phi for All]

On the one hand, we have your idea that somehow we lost knowledge (those who had it died before passing it along?) (it was somehow struck from the memories of every human?) (it was such a great idea it was destroyed for some reason?) that we once had about some things, including our god and his purpose for us, which would arguably be the most important thing we could ever know.

 

On the other hand, we have reality telling us we don't seem to have lost anything super important, and still see no evidence of god(s).

 

Occam's Razor might be a good tool to apply here.

 

 

 

 

Also, the popular theme I meant is the Atlantis story, where we somehow had a more powerful yet simpler technology than anything around today, and we lived in harmony with nature until we deviated from that path, busted something, and sunk into the ocean. Now, of course, we MUST remember what was lost or we'll end up like the Atlanteans.

 

What else in our (actual) history is like that? Where else have we made something better in our earlier history than what we have now? Technology doesn't really work that way.

[Scotty99]

On the one hand, we have your idea that somehow we lost knowledge (those who had it died before passing it along?) (it was somehow struck from the memories of every human?) (it was such a great idea it was destroyed for some reason?) that we once had about some things, including our god and his purpose for us, which would arguably be the most important thing we could ever know.

 

On the other hand, we have reality telling us we don't seem to have lost anything super important, and still see no evidence of god(s).

 

Occam's Razor might be a good tool to apply here.

That's funny you bring that up, occam's razor is one of reasons geocentrism makes so much sense to me. Again, i already had that thread and i dont want to turn this into that. But if relativity itself (the best way we can currently explain what we are seeing in the universe) says that its POSSIBLE that the earth is in the middle, to me that says it is LIKELY that it is. Most people dont even realize how tied a geocentric universe is to relativity, they are basically two different ways of saying the same thing. Yes you could link me things about why the earth isnt in the middle and how this experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt we are moving in space, but in the end relativity is working against itself here, both can be valid view points. Please, lets not go down that road.

[Strange]

We have evidence there isn't a creator?

 

 

No. But we have evidence for lots of other things: such as who built the pyramids, why, how many people worked on it, for how long, where they lived, what they ate, what they were paid, etc. Why guess at something "magical" when we have a lot of information.

 

 

I just feel that our current religions cannot be true because of how they divide everyone, i think the truth would be one that brings people together.

...

My idea of a creator would bring people together, and i think that is how it was in the not so distant past.

 

This is a pretty standard part of most religious doctrines: "we could end all suffering and disagreement if only people would follow MY religion rather than those other, false ones."

 

 

 

And i really am not using feelings here lol, i just think that the knowledge we lost is one that would be so strong that no one would be questioning it, it would be inherent to everyone. Again there is no way i can speculate as to how, but i just believe we all KNEW we had a creator in the past.

 

You are "not using feelings" but your entire idea is just based on your personal beliefs. Again, I struggle to see the difference.

 

 

 

That's funny you bring that up, occam's razor is one of reasons geocentrism makes so much sense to me.

 

That suggests that you don't understand Occam's razor: "don't introduce any unnecessary entities". It is not necessary for the Earth to be at the centre of the universe (or for there to be a creator). So by introducing these unnecessary concepts (that have no support or reason beyond your beliefs/feelings) you are violating Occam's razor.

[Scotty99]

The things you pick and choose out of my posts strange lol. I thought i have made it fairly clear i have no agenda here, nor have i ever followed any religion but you are still accusing me of such things. What personal beliefs do i have? I dont understand what that means. And occams razor absolutely makes sense in regards to geocentrism, when i think of occams razor this is what stands out to me:

The razor's statement that "other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones"

To me, geocentrism is the simpler explanation, especially when it is allowable by our current theories. The problem we would have now is the testing, how do you test for a creator?

 

 

 

Even if you disagree with my interpretation of occams razor, the fact remains that relativity states that it is possible the earth could be in the middle, that is what really piqued my interest in geocentrism in the first place, the fact its POSSIBLE in our theory that best describes the universe.

[Phi for All]

That's funny you bring that up, occam's razor is one of reasons geocentrism makes so much sense to me.

 

Think about what you're saying here. You're saying it's more likely that, out of all the trillions of massive bodies in the universe, ours just happens to be the center of all of it? You're also throwing out all the actual evidence that says there is no center to the universe, as well as all the science we have that the Earth orbits the sun, which in turn orbits a galactic center.

 

Occam's Razor. I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

[Scotty99]

Like i said above maybe my interpretation leaves something to be desired, check my example i put.

 

But what i am more trying to get across, in trying to make you guys understand how my brain works is this. In a theory that is over 100 years old that we are still using, that theory says that it is POSSIBLE for the earth to be in the center (remember, all are valid frames in relativity) how can i let go of the idea of geocentrism when i am fairly certain that we also have a creator? Leave robert sungenis, the bible, everything that you would imagine a religious fanatic would say out of this, just please focus on relativity here.

 

Again not trying to make this about geocentrism, more trying to show where i am coming from so you guys can understand me a bit clearer.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Scotty99

[Strange]

The things you pick and choose out of my posts strange lol. I thought i have made it fairly clear i have no agenda here, nor have i ever followed any religion but you are still accusing me of such things. What personal beliefs do i have?

 

 

You believe in a Creator who is invisible and undetectable. This is common to many religions.

 

You believe that we and/or our planet are somehow special or "chosen". This is also common to many religions.

 

You believe that if everyone believed in your creator then things would be better. This is also common to many religions.

 

Like religion, this is entirely based on believe and "gut feel". How about you explain how your beliefs are different from religious beliefs instead of just insisting they are.

 

 

 

Even if you disagree with my interpretation of occams razor, the fact remains that relativity states that it is possible the earth could be in the middle, that is what really piqued my interest in geocentrism in the first place, the fact its POSSIBLE in our theory that best describes the universe.

 

And that is where the idea falls down. It is also possible that Jupiter, Alpha Centauri or some speck of dust outside our visible universe is the centre of the universe. So which is simpler: that we are The Special Chosen Ones or that there is no single special location?

 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity).

 

You are inventing a creator, a special location, a forgotten history, and various other magical and unnecessary concepts.

 

 

But what i am more trying to get across, in trying to make you guys understand how my brain works is this. In a theory that is over 100 years old that we are still using, that theory says that it is POSSIBLE for the earth to be in the center (remember, all are valid frames in relativity) how can i let go of the idea of geocentrism when i am fairly certain that we also have a creator?

 

But if we have a creator then so does every other star, planet, lifeforms and speck of dust in the universe. So they are all equally justified in being the centre of the universe (because there is no centre).

 

So you are choosing your location despite the billions upon billions of other equally valid choices. Not exactly rational. But perfect for a new religion.

[Phi for All]

Again not trying to make this about geocentrism, more trying to show where i am coming from so you guys can understand me a bit clearer.

 

Not making this about geocentrism, I'm more trying to show you that where you're coming from is a position you have to hold in the face of multiple intellectual obstacles. You've been filling in the gaps in your understanding of relativity with god, and it sounds like you cherry-pick your information to fit your concepts, which is foolish in the extreme. You insist on putting an unnecessary and unobservable god in the middle of necessary and observable phenomena.

 

This bastardized pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious approach creates more questions than answers, and produces nothing trustworthy as far as explanations. It has no predictability. To go back to the geocentrism momentarily, you should look at our own system's orbits if the Earth was at the center. They're insane, they make no sense. Put the sun in the center though, and all the orbits make nice, smooth, predictable, reality-based ellipses.

[Scotty99]

Strange i have tried to remain as transparent here as i can, but you still think i am on some religious crusade lol. As i mentioned a couple of times in this thread, my idea of a creator is one in that you dont have to take faith into the equation, everyone knew there was a creator based on something substantial they experienced at the time. I think that alone is explanation enough as to why you can trust me when i say this thread has nothing to do with religion, if everyone knows a creator exists the negatives we attribute to current religions mostly fall away in a scenario i describe above.

 

Ill concede for sure that just because relativity states the earth can be the center that does not necessarily mean we are. Its just really hard to get away from the fact that it is possible, especially when i take into account some of the other things ive brought up in this thread.

 

I understand you two mostly disagree with how i am getting to these conclusions and that is fair. But you also have to understand that i have made a conscious decision to think in a different way than what is an accepted approach to problem solving. You are absolutely correct in assuming some of this is gut feeling, i think ignoring that entirely would be a poor decision, luckily i feel ive a good gut. To me being right matters, not how you get there. I think that is the main difference between me and you two.

 

Hopefully the thread can continue but i am not so sure, it seems to me just thinking in a different way than the norm is a big no no around here. To be honest i was hoping to get more spit balling from other people on what they feel to be the truth, but i think the culture around here discourages that, which seems a bit of a shame. A hypothetical if you will, say tomorrow we found evidence that everything i predicted in this thread was true. Would you guys care at all that i predicted the truth, would i get praise for being right? Or am i simply just odd for thinking that the truth matters and not how you get there?

[Memammal]

Or am i simply just odd for thinking that the truth matters and not how you get there?

X-Files: The truth is out there... Scotty99, there are many people like you with similar imaginations and conspiracy theories in abundance. And that is perfectly OK. The world would have been a poorer place without the likes of you, just consider all the amazing movies, TV series, comic and fiction books that would not have been created (or watched/read) without utilising that part of our brains. Still, it is equally important to be able to differentiate between fact and fiction. So back to my first post in this thread - the facts are available...pls use them. I ended up in that same post asking you if you could consider nature to be our creator. Would that satisfy your needs, or is it too natural for you?

[Strange]

Strange i have tried to remain as transparent here as i can, but you still think i am on some religious crusade lol.

 

 

I don't think you are on any sort of crusade. I am just pointing out that your way of thinking (belief in things that do not appear to exists and based on zero evidence) are indistinguishable from religion. And some of the specific beliefs (e.g. a creator, us being "special" or chosen in some way, etc) are common to many religions.

 

The only argument you have against your beliefs not being religious is, "no it isn't". Not very convincing. Again, can you explain how your belief system differs from a religious one?

 

 

 

I think that alone is explanation enough as to why you can trust me when i say this thread has nothing to do with religion, if everyone knows a creator exists the negatives we attribute to current religions mostly fall away in a scenario i describe above.

 

Which is pretty similar to what a lot of religions say.

 

 

 

But you also have to understand that i have made a conscious decision to think in a different way than what is an accepted approach to problem solving.

 

But your "different" way appears to be to ignore facts and accept whatever ideas you come up with, just because they make sense to you.

 

 

 

luckily i feel ive a good gut.

 

Of course you do. Most people do. That is why critical thinking and learning how to evaluate evidence is important.

 

 

 

To me being right matters, not how you get there. I think that is the main difference between me and you two.

 

But the only way of knowing if you are right is to test your ideas against reality. (That is the difference between us.)

 

Instead you seem to think that because you thought of it, and you trust your own ideas, then it must be true. But anyone can do that and come up with their own ideas, possible contradictory to yours. So how should someone decide which of these manifold random ideas has any basis in reality? Not by choosing the one who "has the best gut", that is for sure.

 

 

 

it seems to me just thinking in a different way than the norm is a big no no around here.

 

It is not thinking in a different way that is a problem, it is ignoring reality.

 

 

 

To be honest i was hoping to get more spit balling from other people on what they feel to be the truth, but i think the culture around here discourages that, which seems a bit of a shame.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to discuss that. (I am not particularly interested, because I'm not sure the term is particularly meaningful; nor do I believe it is, in general, knowable.)

 

 

 

A hypothetical if you will, say tomorrow we found evidence that everything i predicted in this thread was true. Would you guys care at all that i predicted the truth, would i get praise for being right?

 

I certainly would not give any credit for a random guess, even if it did turn out to be right. Look up "justified true belief" for example. If there is no reason (justification) for the belief then it does not count as knowledge, it is just a guess. No predicts for guessing the right answer.

[Phi for All]

Ill concede for sure that just because relativity states the earth can be the center that does not necessarily mean we are. Its just really hard to get away from the fact that it is possible, especially when i take into account some of the other things ive brought up in this thread.

 

You've taken some data (relativity has no preferential frame of reference), that was turned into information (in general relativity, you can use the math to make a frame of reference stationary), and turned it into misinformation (the Earth could be the center of the universe). As I mentioned before (and you ignored), if you put Earth in a fixed position, the orbits of the planets and sun look crazy impossible. Even early astronomers noted this. When the sun is at the center of our system, the orbits make sense, and physics isn't violated.

 

You think you're doing something special, that your way of looking at a problem is untainted by the evils of modern education, and that your intuition is capable of solving problems that takes others years of study. You believe you are capable of thinking outside the box without knowing much about what's inside.

 

It's a bit delusional. You didn't study science in school for some reason, but now feel an affinity towards it, and think you see glimpses of understanding when you read popular science articles, and that empowers you to feel like maybe you didn't need all that studying anyway. You can hold your own with people who did study, because your brain works differently. It doesn't need all the knowledge, because you can leap from conclusion to conclusion without the tedious study, experimentation, research, trial, error, methodology, and critical thinking. You can intuitively leap ahead and wait for the scientists to catch up to your conclusions.

 

I encourage you to learn, and keep thinking, but you might want to stop rambling, stay away from "truth", and study the gray areas a bit harder. Critical thinking and the scientific method are better than rambling, the best supported explanations are far more trustworthy than anybody's "truth", and coloring in the gray areas is the most obvious reason for existence there is.

[Ophiolite]

I understand you two mostly disagree with how i am getting to these conclusions and that is fair. But you also have to understand that i have made a conscious decision to think in a different way than what is an accepted approach to problem solving. You are absolutely correct in assuming some of this is gut feeling, i think ignoring that entirely would be a poor decision, luckily i feel ive a good gut. To me being right matters, not how you get there. I think that is the main difference between me and you two.

I would be amazed if any serious scientist denied the value of intuition in identifying, classifying and tackling problems. Intuition likely plays a much larger part than it is accorded in any formal description of the scientific method. However, the value of intuition lies in suggesting questions, and directions, and solutions, and approaches. To actually reach and validate the answer requires systematic investigation and structured argument.

 

 

Hopefully the thread can continue but i am not so sure, it seems to me just thinking in a different way than the norm is a big no no around here. To be honest i was hoping to get more spit balling from other people on what they feel to be the truth, but i think the culture around here discourages that, which seems a bit of a shame. A hypothetical if you will, say tomorrow we found evidence that everything i predicted in this thread was true. Would you guys care at all that i predicted the truth, would i get praise for being right? Or am i simply just odd for thinking that the truth matters and not how you get there?

You would deserve praise if, and only if, you could demonstrate that you had arrived at your prediction by a sound method of reasoning and investigation. Anyone can make a wild ass guess and be correct. That's not the same as being right.