That doesn’t take into account the possibility of revealed truth: that God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. So for the religiously orthodox, it’s not a guessing game or ungrounded speculation, but reflection on the meaning of historical events that were animated by the Holy Spirit. — Wayfarer

Well, that's one of the popular theories of course.

My own speculative theory is that ideas like "God" and "mankind" assume a division which is only conceptual, not real. The perceived division is a property of the observer, not a property of the reality that is being observed.

If I'm wearing sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. If everybody is wearing sunglasses all their lives, then the apparent tint color of reality is taken as an obvious given by the group consensus, and becomes an assumption which is rarely if ever examined.

For centuries those wearing sunglasses engage in never ending debates regarding whether reality is tinted more blue than green, or more green than blue. The debate becomes a career for some, while many people build their personal identity around their position in that debate, and an ever higher pile of compelling human agendas builds in favor of keeping the debate going. And it's all about nothing, because the debaters neglected to examine and challenge the assumption the debate was built upon.

Are you bored of that? I’m not. — TogetherTurtle

Where are your threads on the subject? Point us to them please.

You forgot about nuclear power. You forgot about technology letting us colonize the stars, making nuclear weapons ending civilization a thing of the past (we’re entering the beginning phases of that by the way). You forgot about mutually assured destruction. You forgot about the innumerable failsafes nuclear powers have in place to stop their countdowns. You forgot about nuclear bunkers filled with technology to rebuild the future. You forgot about the versitality of mankind, essentially. You forgot a lot. — TogetherTurtle

Not only that, I forgot why I bother to discuss this on philosophy forums at all.

Where are your threads on the subject? Point us to them please. — Jake

Why do I need a thread on something to have interest?

Not only that, I forgot why I bother to discuss this on philosophy forums at all. — Jake

Have you ever considered that if you can't prove a point to anyone, you may be wrong? It may be an interesting avenue of thought. Perhaps you should explore that.

Why do I need a thread on something to have interest? — TogetherTurtle

Just another poser....

Have you ever considered that if you can't prove a point to anyone, you may be wrong? — TogetherTurtle

I did spend years considering that, until I discovered that no one, no matter how well educated, has been able to defeat the general premise articulated in my thesis. What they typically do instead is what you're doing, throw up a bunch of ego fueled smoke and then get bored, and wander off to some other subject where they can throw up more ego fueled smoke.

While this pattern has been frustrating to me, and to some degree still is, I have learned something important from years of engaging in this process.

Our outdated relationship with knowledge is not going to be edited with reason. What I've been wrong about was the assumption that was possible.

My mindset in this regard suffers from the same ignorant arrogance that leads the group consensus to assume that it can manage any power science uncovers, no matter how large.

So, it is entirely possible to debunk my posts on this subject, but sadly for you, you're not up to the job, so I have to do it for you. But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 20-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse.

where they can throw up more ego fueled smoke. — Jake

Aren't you the one getting a little angry?

What they typically do instead is what you're doing, throw up a bunch of ego fueled smoke and then get bored — Jake

So, what would you consider, "ego fueled smoke"?

Our outdated relationship with knowledge is not going to be edited with reason. What I've been wrong about was the assumption that was possible. — Jake

Why do you think this though? You cling to this truth but is it really even true?

So, it is entirely possible to debunk my posts on this subject, but sadly for you, you're not up to the job, so I have to do it for you. — Jake

So, what have I been doing? You seem to drop an argument after I criticize it. Am I supposed to assume that you have an argument and you are just sparing me?

But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 20-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse. — Jake

You've been losing an argument on the internet, and it's actually made you mad to boot. But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 70-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse.

It leads to a mastery of nature, — Jake

Rather, I think it leads to the illusion of a mastery of nature.

Just another poser.... — Jake

Oh, I almost forgot. There's this great website called tumblr.com that I think is more your speed. You should check it out. They love activism.

My own speculative theory is that ideas like "God" and "mankind" assume a division which is only conceptual, not real. The perceived division is a property of the observer, not a property of the reality that is being observed. — Jake

That's nondualism. It's interesting but not relevant to the point as it belongs to a different domain of discourse. The point I was making was one about how spirituality might inform epistemology, but never mind.

Rather, I think it leads to the illusion of a mastery of nature. — Janus

Yes, when my science teacher separated hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis it was all smoke and mirrors.

Aren't you the one getting a little angry? — TogetherTurtle

Yes, I apologize. I have no personal beef with you, I really don't. But please understand, I've been discussing this for over a decade on many different sites, and I've heard everything you're saying, and the snarky attitude behind it, at least 56 million times.

Imagine getting in to a debate with a Jehovah's Witness. Stupid, right? They will debate you in earnest, but really they have no interest in reason. Same thing talking with science worshipers. To the degree I'm angry it's mostly with myself for engaging in an activity that I know is a total waste of time. So that's on me, and it my little problem to sort out.

That's nondualism. It's interesting but not relevant to the point as it belongs to a different domain of discourse. — Wayfarer

Ok, I hear you, no complaints. But then, dividing everything up in to different domains of discourse is another example of what I'm pointing to. Just sayin... :-)

Same thing talking with science worshipers. — Jake

With all due respect I don't worship it. I know people who worship it. A worshiper will be devout and will not change. If you made a good point I would agree with you. I can't back that up of course but I suppose you could just take my word for it. Just know that I think that changing your mind isn't a weakness but a strength, and I'm not afraid to agree with you, but I won't unless you make a convincing argument.

Yes, I apologize. I have no personal beef with you, I really don't. But please understand, I've been discussing this for over a decade on many different sites, and I've heard everything you're saying, and the snarky attitude behind it, at least 56 million times. — Jake

I don't have any beef with you either. I apologize if I was too snarky but I do tend to match the attitude others give out. It's just banter anyway, all in good fun, I never intended to hurt your feelings too much.

I think that you are doing a good thing despite what you may think. The universe may work a certain way but we will never get there if we don't challenge already established ideas. Everyone needs a devil's advocate.

So that's on me, and it my little problem to sort out. — Jake

We all struggle with our impulses. Don't feel bad about that.

Of course I haven't said that natural materials cannot be manipulated. Mastery is another matter altogether. We cannot even master our own natures. If we continue to act as though nature is an endless storehouse of resources that may be used at will for our own profit we will soon come to know how little actual mastery of nature we have.

(Why is this site becoming infested with turtles? First we had a Stationary Terrapin and now we have a Together Turtle! Are there more invaders form the natural world to come? Perhaps nature is trying to tell us something about our supposed mastery! :joke: :rofl:)

With all due respect I don't worship it. I know people who worship it. A worshiper will be devout and will not change. If you made a good point I would agree with you. I can't back that up of course but I suppose you could just take my word for it. Just know that I think that changing your mind isn't a weakness but a strength, and I'm not afraid to agree with you, but I won't unless you make a convincing argument. — TogetherTurtle

Let's try this. Perhaps you could summarize what you think my argument is. If you wish. Or we could forget it and move on. Agree to that too.

Of course I haven't said that natural materials cannot be manipulated. Mastery is another matter altogether. We cannot even master our own natures. If we continue to act as though nature is an endless storehouse of resources that may be used at will for our own profit we will soon come to know how little actual mastery of nature we have. — Janus

Whoever said we had endless resources? All I'm saying is that once you understand everything about something you can control it. I know all of the properties of dirt and I can find out what particles and elements are in it. Therefore I can do anything I wish with the dirt as long as it can be done with the dirt. That is mastery.

If you think it is possible to "understand everything about something" or "know all the properties of dirt" or that you can, without consequences "do anything I wish with the dirt as long as it can be done with the dirt" it shows how little you understand nature, not to speak of possessing mastery of it, and I think you are unknowingly in line for a very rude shock.

Let's try this. Perhaps you could summarize what you think my argument is. If you wish. Or we could forget it and move on. Agree to that too. — Jake

From my perspective, your argument is this: You can't prove that there is no god and humans can't understand the overarching themes that define the universe.

My argument was that you don't have proof for that either, and on the contrary, we manipulate the laws of nature to our own ends all the time.

If you think it is possible to "understand everything about something" or "know all the properties of dirt" or that you can, without consequences "do anything I wish with the dirt as long as it can be done with the dirt" it shows how little you understand nature, not to speak of possessing mastery of it, and I think you are unknowingly in line for a very rude shock. — Janus

And who said that there would be no consequences? Everything has consequences. So, humor me. How does nature work? Why can't I learn everything about dirt?

And to be fair, I know exactly what can happen if I use dirt wrong. Floods or food shortages can be caused by having the wrong dirt in the wrong place. But, if I know everything about dirt, and I know everything about floods and crops, then I can move the dirt accordingly. Disasters are only allowed to happen because we don't understand everything.

we manipulate the laws of nature to our own ends all the time. — TogetherTurtle

We don't manipulate the laws of nature: at best we manipulate natural materials in accordance with our understanding of the laws governing their behavior. The point is that understanding the behavior of natural materials, the small picture, does not give us the big ecological picture regarding our place in nature, and the inevitable consequences of our over-exploitative manipulations.

Disasters are only allowed to happen because we don't understand everything. — TogetherTurtle

But you said that you (by which I assumed you meant the collective 'we') understood everything about dirt, which would seem to be a contradiction. Or were you talking just about yourself? If so, are you a soils scientist as well as an expert ecologist or something like that?

We don't manipulate the laws of nature: at best we manipulate natural materials in accordance with our understanding of the laws governing their behavior. — Janus

You just made my statement longer. Using the laws of nature to manipulate materials is still using (manipulating) the laws of nature.

The point is that understanding the behavior of natural materials, the small picture, does not give us the big ecological picture regarding our place in nature, and the inevitable consequences of our over-exploitative manipulations. — Janus

Whoever said that? I may understand dirt but I certainly don't understand the importance of spider monkies in their ecosystem or ever where they live really. I know that if we study them we could know all that and then act accordingly.

As for our place in nature, who defines that but ourselves? We generally do what we please most of the time. If we are destroyed by over exploitative manipulations we weren't smart enough to live in the first place.

But you said that you (by which I assumed you meant the collective 'we') understood everything about dirt, which would seem to be a contradiction. Or were you talking just about yourself? If so, are you a soils scientist or something like that? — Janus

Dirt isn't the only thing creating disasters, is it? Wind and lightning and dry grass and the ocean cause disasters all the time. I never claimed that we knew everything about those.

And I meant we. I must have slipped or something. Accidents happen. I would like to be a biologist of some kind but animals gross me out when they're cut open, so I'll leave that for someone else.

As for our place in nature, who defines that but ourselves? — TogetherTurtle

Here is where the true nature of your (and when I say 'your' I am also referring, by implication, to the collective we) ignorance is so beautifully and ironically betrayed. Yes, if we destroy ourselves it will be because we weren't smart enough; and we are not smart enough if we think that our place in nature is determined only by ourselves.

Here is where the true nature of your (and when I say 'your' I am also referring, by implication, to the collective we) ignorance is so beautifully and ironically betrayed. Yes, if we destroy ourselves it will be because we weren't smart enough; because we thought that our place in nature is determined by ourselves. — Janus

And yet we have not destroyed ourselves yet, despite overwhelming odds. Why is that?

If we don't define our place, who does? Definition seems to be an inherently human idea. A chair is only a chair because we have decided it is a chair.

A chair is only a chair because we have decided it is a chair. — TogetherTurtle

That’s not a definition. :razz:

Wind and lightning and dry grass and the ocean cause disasters all the time. — TogetherTurtle

True they cause disasters for us; but it is we who are causing greater disasters for ourselves as well as the rest of nature on this planet at least.

That’s not a definition. :razz: — Noah Te Stroete

That is not a definition, sure, but it is an object we have defined.

True they cause disasters for us; but it is we who are causing greater disasters for ourselves as well as the rest of nature on this planet at least. — Janus

And who can stop these? Certainly not us if we don't look into more technology. Especially if we can't fully understand these problems.

That's because we have only had two or three hundred years to accomplish the task of our self-destruction (compliments of the massive cheap energy of fossil fuels which are now becoming less and less cheap to access). Hopefully we can pull back before it is too late; but I don't think it's looking too promising.