Never trust someone who has found the truth?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Woodcarver

I guess I'll say it one more time. Atheist do not make a claim that God does not exist. They just do not believe your claims that a God does exist.

I don't believe in a god like religion does. Way to also jump to conclusions. I specifically said spirit realm.

So you believe in the spirit realm? Then just replace God with the spirit realm and it's the same argument.

You just hung Gryphon on his argument with your statement here. Hence, my disposition on Hawking's arrogance is strengthened.

So, to be clear, your claim is that something Woodcarver didn't say, about an argument I didn't make, proves your position on what Hawking didn't say?

I can see why you have to invoke "special knowledge" to make these things make sense ....

Go back through and read the thread from the beginning. Then come back and read this post from yourself.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Woodcarver

I guess I'll say it one more time. Atheist do not make a claim that God does not exist. They just do not believe your claims that a God does exist.

I don't believe in a god like religion does. Way to also jump to conclusions. I specifically said spirit realm.

So you believe in the spirit realm? Then just replace God with the spirit realm and it's the same argument.

You just hung Gryphon on his argument with your statement here. Hence, my disposition on Hawking's arrogance is strengthened.

So, to be clear, your claim is that something Woodcarver didn't say, about an argument I didn't make, proves your position on what Hawking didn't say?

I can see why you have to invoke "special knowledge" to make these things make sense ....

Go back through and read the thread from the beginning. Then come back and read this post from yourself.

This is not an argument. You're claiming "special knowledge" which can only be subjective, since you can't demonstrate the experience to anyone but yourself, i.e. it is subjective.

By your own statements here, subjective knowledge is not objective knowledge.

(Speaking of being hoist on your own petard.)

This is the core of OP's argument, from their post.

No one can ever know the full truth about anything. Therefore, no one who claims to know the full truth about anything can be trusted.

Anyone care to discuss that rather than personal, mundane, belief-based BS?

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I can settle this whole thing very easy with one question. Do you believe in a god or a conscious higher power that speaks to humans, cares about humans, and/or manipulates reality to answer prayers? Or any similar varient? Feel free to ad or remove any properties of such a being.

a reply to: Woodcarver

My argument is not that these things don't exist. My argument is that anyone who says they do exist needs to provide some significant evidence to back up their claims.

I can't prove they do, neither can you prove they don't, either.

I am glad (I think) that we both have trouble with religion as expressed in the main stream. To me that is a control trip designed to limit peoples understanding.

Best keep an open mind though about the reality. We are very limited here in our understanding of the true nature of the Universe, from our three D perspective.

Pondering the tesseract helps...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Woodcarver

Real Unicorn Remains Found - CNN

lol. This is easy to dispute. CNN. Fake news.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oy vey.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Woodcarver

My argument is not that these things don't exist. My argument is that anyone who says they do exist needs to provide some significant evidence to back up their claims.

I can't prove they do, neither can you prove they don't, either.

I am glad (I think) that we both have trouble with religion as expressed in the main stream. To me that is a control trip designed to limit peoples understanding.

Best keep an open mind though about the reality. We are very limited here in our understanding of the true nature of the Universe, from our three D perspective.

Pondering the tesseract helps...

I don't have to prove they don't exist. Just like we don't have to prove that jon doe talks to elvis every day. So don't ever use that argument again. It is not an argument that works in any form.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You were wrong; let's accept that and move on. No need to be personal.

Did you sail too far and fall off the earth? Theres no "moviing on" till you address the Carl Sagan video you claimed you are a fan of...

I have to move on right now, check back later.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

You were wrong; let's accept that and move on. No need to be personal.

Did you sail too far and fall off the earth? Theres no "moviing on" till you address the Carl Sagan video you claimed you are a fan of...

I have to move on right now, check back later.

Nope, I can move on anytime I choose to.

Watch.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Woodcarver

My argument is not that these things don't exist. My argument is that anyone who says they do exist needs to provide some significant evidence to back up their claims.

I can't prove they do, neither can you prove they don't, either.

I am glad (I think) that we both have trouble with religion as expressed in the main stream. To me that is a control trip designed to limit peoples understanding.

Best keep an open mind though about the reality. We are very limited here in our understanding of the true nature of the Universe, from our three D perspective.

Pondering the tesseract helps...

you are still claiming special knowledge and not offering any explanation. A tesseract is just a geometric shape. And we live in a 4 dimensional perspective not a 3 dimensional one.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Aside from those who profess knowledge that they just don't have (or at least, can't prove), I think that OP's position is a statement of PERSONAL belief, and it is that point that many here are failing to see in their zeal to deny something that OP isn't saying.

OP seems to believe that religion is a claim to absolute knowledge, that is, that any of the very specific claims that Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Wicca makes that are exclusive of all other statements, are the ones that OP has to call into question as untrustworthy.

I'm not sure how anyone here could complain about that. God, given the normal meaning of that word, transcends all description. Therefore, any description which claims absolute truth about God must be innately false.

Which to me, is what OP is saying, not any of these other garden-variety crap-arguments being tossed around.

What do you think?

Maxwell, Sagan, astrotheology , all a bit dodge and have been around for years , being a bit dodge.

What Rumsfeld said was "There are known knowns, known unknowns , and unknown unknowns" . Pertinent to the thread .
If someone claims to know knowns , surely that's fair enough, and then you might know those knowable knowns, and its called learning . It would be fair enough if you wished to check those with knowable knowns know that there are known unknowns , and what they might be too . Its also fair enough to admit there are things we dont know that we dont know - unknown unknowns. We are all everyone of us prone to these facts . If someone claims to know 'the truth' indespite of this , then they are probably heavily religious or bigoted and not most likely not worth listening to .

As to disbeleiving someone just because they claim to know the truth , then that might apply in Maxwell's world where he sets out to disprove Christianity in the main isn't it /?

But if someone claims to know a knowable fact , then to simply dismiss their supposed arrogance belying their supposed and attached actual ignorance is a childish approach that will get you nowhere . It's an evil of a sort to think like that : dodgy Maxwell, is what I said . I've been around a while , too.

I dont tend to refer to 'the truth' per se, but often do try to say, 'this or that is fact , only if I myself or others also beleive it is fact knowable by others . I find people's pedance over niggling little matters of fact entirely dispensable however .

a reply to: ZIPMATT

You left out the "unknown knowns" ... which we usually refer to as ignorance.

That also is important to the thread, no?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ZIPMATT

You left out the "unknown knowns" ... which we usually refer to as ignorance.

That also is important to the thread, no?

I did ? Aren't those the known unknowns , or is it April Fools Day still /?

Its Donald Rumsfelds quote , I dont remember him purporting about the things we know that we don't care to remember to that we know , but he might well have , thinking about it . Refer to it as bs/lies if nothing else , self abasement also
Ignorance has another definition perhaps

a reply to: Profusion

No one can ever know the full truth about anything. Therefore, no one who claims to know the full truth about anything can be trusted.

I believe that's a rock solid logical argument. It fits well with my belief that all we appear to live in slightly different alternative universes simultaneously. In other words, each of our realities may be slightly different. How certain can we be of anything in such a situation?

It is impossible to know whether someone knows the full truth or not if you don't know the full truth yourself. You would never be able to confirm nor deny whether that is the case unless you had access to the full truth. It's like saying you don't know what you don't know; it's a redundant tautology and relativist mess.

As for your alternate universe, the statement "copper conducts electricity" is true in my own universe. What about yours?

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge.[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often (incorrectly) used to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts.

wiki

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you don't have any evidence that any atheist has "claimed to know the secrets of the Universe."

No, they do.

ETA: By claiming a thing isn't true one has to assert that is isn't true everywhere, otherwise its a false claim. Again, how could you know that something isn't true any everywhere? You can't even see one tiny fraction of one spectrum with your eyeballs.

I guess I'll do it again. Atheism is not the position that God does not exist. It is a position of disbelief in the claim that Gods do exist.

Well as long as you put it like that, yes everyones entitled to their beliefs.

But thats not very scientific is it?

a reply to: Woodcarver

A tesseract is just a geometric shape.

Whoops, no its not. Its a representation of some -'thing' that has no shape. Just like a 2d flatlander has no realm of understanding for the concept of 'up'.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

You were wrong; let's accept that and move on. No need to be personal.

Did you sail too far and fall off the earth? Theres no "moviing on" till you address the Carl Sagan video you claimed you are a fan of...

I have to move on right now, check back later.

Nope, I can move on anytime I choose to.

Watch.

(puts fingers in ears, closes eyes and goes, "la la la")