What do you believe?

[Malduk]

@Malduk

Is and if so how is absolute different from perfect?
How does this belief shape/interact with your other beliefs?

Perfect? For who? Under which rules? If something is beyond your comprehension, then you cant really tag it with something like "perfect".

My "other" beliefs are shaped by other influences. But at least I can sit back while atheists and theists flame each other trying to put reason behind actions of "man in the sky".

[OldTrees]

My "other" beliefs are shaped by other influences. But at least I can sit back while atheists and theists flame each other trying to put reason behind actions of "man in the sky".

So what are those beliefs?

Just for confirmation of if I understood:
You believe in an undefinable, unknowable, incomprehensible actor.


How do you determine if God did something or if your expectations of nature are wrong?

[Malduk]

My "other" beliefs are shaped by other influences. But at least I can sit back while atheists and theists flame each other trying to put reason behind actions of "man in the sky".

So what are those beliefs?

Just for confirmation of if I understood:
You believe in an undefinable, unknowable, incomprehensible actor.


How do you determine if God did something or if your expectations of nature are wrong?

You'll have to be more specific, I dont want to write a book. My views are very similar to strong agnosticism in a way that humans cannot know or even grasp the idea of the god. There are no adjectives to describe it. With a difference that I actually believe absolute like that exists (as opposed to agnostic view that we cannot know if any deity exists or not).

And, I dont determine if god did something at all. I have no way of knowing that. Whatever can be proven is from "this world" aka part of the absolute that humans CAN understand and measure.

[OldTrees]

So what are those beliefs?

Just for confirmation of if I understood:
You believe in an undefinable, unknowable, incomprehensible actor.


How do you determine if God did something or if your expectations of nature are wrong?

You'll have to be more specific, I dont want to write a book. My views are very similar to strong agnosticism in a way that humans cannot know or even grasp the idea of the god. There are no adjectives to describe it. With a difference that I actually believe absolute like that exists (as opposed to agnostic view that we cannot know if any deity exists or not).

And, I dont determine if god did something at all. I have no way of knowing that. Whatever can be proven is from "this world" aka part of the absolute that humans CAN understand and measure.

Ah, so god is everything (aka absolute) therefore nature is not separate from god.

Well to make it easier on your fingers, how about a summary of a summary of your beliefs on morality/ethics?

[QuantumT]

I believe there is a god (or God). By my definition, god is the absolute, and by that definition, its pretty silly to think there isnt a god. Many religions share the definition of a god being the absolute, but they try to describe the absolute by non-absolute adjectives. Absolute is neither good nor evil, its not vengeful or forgiving. Humans cant perceive the absolute as we're fairly limited in... everything.

Many humans do not bother with absolute as its beyond their imagination. They cant test it, measure it, prove it. If they could, it wouldnt be the absolute, would it?

So basically, god exists because you defined god that way?

[Bloodshadow]

However I do not (in my imperfect collection of knowledge) know of a way to derive that pair of ideas from the same base principles. Note: this is my failing not yours.

People have been jerks to me in the past. My first principle defined their actions as immoral. I fought back, but I did not want to become as immoral as them. Thus, my second principle states that an action is not completely immoral if it is used to counter another immoral act, given that my responsive act causes less or an equal amount of pain compared to the immoral act committed against me. This is how I derived my two principles, so if you can't understand then there's nothing I can do.

[OldTrees]

Your derivation is from the assumption that what you do is right and concludes that what you do is right.

By base principles I meant from premises that if you assume are true that form a valid argument that the conclusion is true.

I understand your belief and why you believe it. Being a philosopher those two parts are not enough. Now I am trying to brainstorm what is the simplest set of premises that do not assume the conclusion but do entail both of the beliefs. (It is a thought experiment for me and you are not obligated to solve it.)

[Bloodshadow]

Your derivation is from the assumption that what you do is right and concludes that what you do is right.

Well... Someone hurts me. I fight back. If I don't, he will not stop. From my own subjective point of view, I don't see how I can not assume that fighting back is right.

[OldTrees]

Your derivation is from the assumption that what you do is right and concludes that what you do is right.

Well... Someone hurts me. I fight back. If I don't, he will not stop. From my own subjective point of view, I don't see how I can not assume that fighting back is right.

Maybe I can rephrase it better.

You have built your ethical/moral beliefs from the top down. (These things are immoral --> Why are they immoral?)
By base principles I was referring to bottom up. (an act is immoral if ____ --> these types of acts are immoral)

It is a difference in approach that is important.
Top down derivation informs you on what you can believe.
Bottom up derivation informs you on what is logically valid to believe.

Both methods are important to use but the first (Top down) is essential to everyone whereas the second is used as a means of checking the first.

[Chironex]

I read too much quantum physics and it's hard do describe what I believe, but if I had to try, it would be something like this:

Really short version:

sort of an agnostic

Short version:

1. Reality is above the grasp of the human intellect.

2. There is probably no "one single truth". I'm leaning towards to believe, that every single view of every single person can be true at the same time.

3. People are taking eveything too seriously. "Life is too short to take it seriously."

4. "Things just happen, what the hell."

I do like to entertain myself with the idea I read in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, said by Death: When people die, whatever they believed in is what's going to happen to them.
So, in the end, everyone will be right. (sucks for some people, great for others, probably unfair, but who said fairness has got anything to do with anything?)

Long version:

I cba to try to into detailed explanations and people would probably be cba to read something that long. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts about atheists vs theists:

We are here. We are now. We are alive. We are going to die one day. Everything else beyond that is just a speculation.

I'm not an atheist, and generally I don't like atheists. Not because they are atheists but because they often have an unpleasant personality. They are arrogant and argue too much. And even often fail at logic and reasoning, even though they like to base their "arguments" on them. That's probably because too many common people tries too look smart on random forums and other places. Then again, I know some pleasant atheists too. :3

I'm also not a theist. I just don't see any reason for me to believe in anything supernatural. I'd like to believe that there is a god. I do not claim that one does not exist, but to my current knowledge, the non-existance seems more probable. Oh, probabilities. They are something I can believe in. 

Atheists or theists, people are free to have their own beliefs/views, but they shouldn't try to shove them down on the throath of others. 

[OldTrees]

I read too much quantum physics and it's hard do describe what I believe, but if I had to try, it would be something like this:

2. There is probably no "one single truth". I'm leaning towards to believe, that every single view of every single person can be true at the same time.

Is this just a believe about the supernatural/nature of this world or does this extend into your moral theory? Take the normative definition of murder (wrongful killing). Do you believe there is one descriptive definition for that category or do you believe that multiple simultaneous contradictory descriptive definitions more accurately portray the truth of the world.

[Note: In the above paragraph I did not reference peoples beliefs about what is wrong for that is irrelevant. Only the truth matters.]

I also would be interested in you describing: What you think is the characteristics that makes something good, evil, neither and both?

[Chironex]

I read too much quantum physics and it's hard do describe what I believe, but if I had to try, it would be something like this:

2. There is probably no "one single truth". I'm leaning towards to believe, that every single view of every single person can be true at the same time.

Is this just a believe about the supernatural/nature of this world or does this extend into your moral theory? Take the normative definition of murder (wrongful killing). Do you believe there is one descriptive definition for that category or do you believe that multiple simultaneous contradictory descriptive definitions more accurately portray the truth of the world.

[Note: In the above paragraph I did not reference peoples beliefs about what is wrong for that is irrelevant. Only the truth matters.]

I also would be interested in you describing: What you think is the characteristics that makes something good, evil, neither and both?

I'm about to go to sleep now. I had a hard time understanding your question. (The question is clear, it is just me that's too tired.  ) I'll have a nice rest now and contemplate the question till tomorrow.