Which comes first?

I find a bit of humor, a bit of irony, in atheists defending their position by terms of logic. Logic is derived from the word 'logos' (for those that didn't know). It was used by the Stoics in ancient Greece and Rome to define the reason of the universe. It was also used in Judaism to represent the divine wisdom of God.

Anyway, on to the post. Before moving on, one must accept 1 of 2 possibilities:

1) The universe has form, function, restraint. It is meant to be the way it is.

Everything is a part of it; everything has meaning.

or

2) The universe is random, chaotic. There is no point to anything. No meaning. If this so then your life, and whatever you make of it, is meaningless. Justice is defined by those in power. Right and wrong are fully subjective, and therefore non-existant in any real terms. Your only true nature is self-preservation. Congratulations, you are nothing more than a self-aware animal.

Still reading? Glad to see you haven't clicked 'reply' and furiously begin to refute the extreme (but realistic) choice of absolute meaning and absolute chaos (as these are the only possible realities).

If you are a firm believer in a chaotic universe, unwilling to be swayed, you can stop reading now. If what you believe is true, nothing I say means anything and you don't have to waste your precious time on this little insignificant rock typing a rebuttal.

If you have doubt in the chaotic universe, believe in or question the ideas of a meaningful universe, or are simply bored and indifferent, read on.

So we have established that the universe has meaning. What of this meaning? Does anyone know what it is? No. We cannot possibly see what it is, as we are but a tiny, little bit of the plan.

If there is divine logic (meaning) then there must be divine law. A definitive right and wrong. We, as "citizens" of the universe, endowed with a speck of logic, know this natural law (whether we choose to believe this or not).

In a world without natural law, the most powerful define justice.

Is this the case? If the whole world told you to do something you found wrong, are you then forced to believe it is no longer wrong?

"But we all have the right to choose what is right and wrong!" some may protest.

And who gave us this 'right'?! Is it a right only because current government says so? Or is it a right that every human should have?

If so, the idea of 'natural law' gets a big +1.

So, thus far, I have laid claims supporting divine logic, and therefore supporting natural law.

Now I return to my original question. If one does not first have the faith that the universe has meaning, is acknowledgement of natural law possible? Can one ever know that God exists, if they first do not accept the existence of natural law that He(or It) has set forth?

People confuse themselves by trying to do it the other way around. They try to know that natural law exists(or that the universe has meaning), before accepting the reality of a God. This, as the Stoics discovered, is not possible.

An atheist who claims they will believe in God if they see proof, when they understand His plan, will never understand it. They are stuck believing in a chaotic universe. Before you find understanding, before you find the proof you want, you must first accept that the universe has meaning (and it's not hard to do. For some, simply a moment of self-reflection and questioning of morals is enough to realize that somewhere there is meaning behind it all) before you can understand.

Which do you believe comes first and why? Faith, or Understanding?

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 01-26-2006).]

One must accept one of two possibilities? I think not. There is /always/ at least a third option. Its just sometimes really damned well hidden.

What is a third option when presented with 'chaotic' and 'meaningful'? They aren't like black and white. You don't mix them and get something "meaningfully chaotic".

http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

You can and do actually, but the line between the meaning and chaos tends to be only wherever it is because we put it there. You only need to look at what people do a lot of the time for evidence about that. You can find examples that youd call meaningful and you can find examples that youd call chaotic.

However that isnt really what I was talking about. What a third option would be that has nothing to do with meaning or chaos I dont know. I just believe it to exist. In this case it is well hidden indeed.

In answer to your original question, I believe neither comes first. Instead, I believe they are both aspects of the same thing. I believe that when you get right down to it, it is all one. It is all one, and it "is". That is the true nature of the universe. We seek to extend this being, to maybe something like "is good" or "is mine" or "is controlled", and to that end we create all our supposed "knowledge" about this world.

Why do I believe that? Experience, and so far thats the belief thats made the most sense to me and melded with my experiences the best.

This isnt to advocate apathy, so dont get me wrong. We should do what we want.

No it is chaostic and meaningless. Everything is the action of the various gods that control our reality, and any subjective meaning to seemingly random events is for them to decide.

If you make the sun god angry, he might not pull the sun back up the next day. Fail to please the rain gods, and your crops wither and die. If you are lazy and don't perform the correct fertility rituals, the stork won't bring your baby.

Or you can make up any retarded shit you want. Enjoy.

Youd have to piss the sun god off a damned bit to make him not pull up the sun the next day for everyone. :P

Of course you can make up any retarded shit you want. If it explains all observations youve made, then its all fine and dandy. If it gets you what you want in life, then its even more so. If it doesnt though, you should find a more convenient belief system. And convenient is the key word there.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Of course you can make up any retarded shit you want. If it explains all observations youve made, then its all fine and dandy.

Allow me to ask:

1) How do you know that you've made the correct observations?

2) How do you know that you've made the correct explanations?

You've left open 2 gates for human error. It's not all fine and dandy.

Allow me to answer:

1) We are talking about observations here. By their nature they cannot be right or wrong, only complete and incomplete. If they could be right or wrong, they would be interpretations of observations, not the observations themselves (wow that was wordy). How can you know whether they are complete or not? You most likely cant. That is why belief systems change as more observations become available.

2) There is also no such thing as a correct explanation. There are always an infinite number of explanations available that explain the observations you know. Always. The question is choosing the one that is most convenient to you.

[This message has been edited by DarkMage35 (edited 01-27-2006).]

So basically it comes down to, you must first believe in God before you find evidence for him... right?

More or less, yes.

You can find plenty of evidence for god without believing in him, but you arent going to see it as evidence for god unless you believe to some degree. Also, the amount of it you see as evidence for god will probably be proportional to the strength of belief.

1. You haven't presented anything to suggest that those are the only two options; not even an argument.

That is a false dilemma.

2. You have not "established" that there is meaning in the universe, which makes your sudden statement that you have (i.e. "So we have established that the universe has meaning. What of this meaning? " ) quite silly to say the least.

3. The whole argument is completely senseless and unreasonable.

Using "divine meaning" as evidence of the existence of the divine is circular logic.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

1) We are talking about observations here. By their nature they cannot be right or wrong, only complete and incomplete. If they could be right or wrong, they would be interpretations of observations, not the observations themselves (wow that was wordy). How can you know whether they are complete or not? You most likely cant. That is why belief systems change as more observations become available.

You used the term 'interpretations of observations'. Tell me, what is the difference between 'making an observation' and 'interpreting an observation'. Different words, same action.

You asked how one knows they have made 'complete' observations. Followed by 'they can't'. You have reinforced the idea that one is incapable of fully understanding an observation because we do not carry 'divine logic'. People do not realize this, thus they waste time and energy trying to explain their 'interpretations of observations' that they will never be able to understand, without first believing that they are incapable of understanding them.

"Everything which happens, is right." http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:2) There is also no such thing as a correct explanation. There are always an infinite number of explanations available that explain the observations you know. Always. The question is choosing the one that is most convenient to you.

No such thing as a correct explanation. Once again, this is correct for humans, as we are incapable of understanding and explaning the universe as (you know what's coming) we are endowed with only a small bit of reasoning compared to that which controls the universe.

The answer, however, is not choosing the explanation that is most convenient to you. It is acknowledging the fact that you cannot explain it at all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

We give our lives meaning based on what we believe, and on what we find important or interesting. This is an extrinsic meaning to life. I, however, do not rule out the possibility that the universe has an intrinsic meaning. But to say that some supernatural being must be behind it all in order for an intrinsic meaning to exist is nonsense. Your statement that we cannot find out what an intrinsic meaning to the universe is also nonsense. It could be true, but it you are just making assumptions.

Right vs. wrong is almost entirely subjective. Many of us share the same feelings on moral issues, but there are still those of us who do not. One of my best friends believes that there is nothing wrong with murder, and that it should be legalized.

In order to try to find in* the universe an intrinsic meaning, you have let your grasp on objective reality slip. Unfortunately, you will only be deluding yourself this way.

Edit: wording

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 01-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. You haven't presented anything to suggest that those are the only two options; not even an argument.

That is a false dilemma.

I have asked, what are the other options? And what argument is necessary, Rust? The universe either has meaning, or it does not. Life either has meaning, or it doesn't. There either is an absolute right or wrong, or there isn't. Is it that difficult to understand? You challenge that my 2 options aren't the only ones. Give me another.

quote:2. You have not "established" that there is meaning in the universe, which makes your sudden statement that you have (i.e. "So we have established that the universe has meaning. What of this meaning? " ) quite silly to say the least.

You didn't read then. I said if you believed in a chaotic, meaningless universe, to go no further. If you considered it a possibility that the universe carries a divine meaning, to read on. From that point on, I typed based on the assumption the reader already considered it a possibility, thus I didn't need to prove it a possibility.

You cannot prove that the idea of a 'meaningful universe' is a possibility to someone. That is a decision only they can make, out of their own desire for more. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:3. The whole argument is completely senseless and unreasonable.

Using "divine meaning" as evidence of the existence of the divine is circular logic.

I didn't use divine logic as evidence of existence. Existence is evident, whether we live in a chaotic or rational universe. Nowhere did I say "if devine logic did not exist, we wouldn't be here". I said "if divine logic didn't exist, life and the universe would be meaningless." I am suggesting that there is in fact 'meaning', but the only way to understand this 'meaning' is to first believe in it. Thus the title of the bloody thread and opening statement: Which comes first, faith or understanding?

Glad you joined the convo, Rust. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Elephantitis Man:

I used "interpretations of observations" and now I am not so sure whether that was the best thing to say to try and communicate what I mean. Anyway...

Observations are the base data. We see, smell, taste, touch, hear, to get them. I am talking about the base data before we intellectualise it. That is important.

Once we have taken the observations and thought about them to "find out" what they are, we have used them to create a nice little world for ourselves, or further that world. That is what I meant by interpretations of observations. All of what we think is our understanding of the universe is a part of that world. Including what Im describing here. All of it.

Complete and incomplete is a judgement made from the point of view of someone with more observational data to process then you. Or it could be a part of one's interpretational world in the form of an idea that perhaps there are more observations possible.

Your comments about my second answer seem to arise from objectivity. Explanations are our creations. There is a surprisingly little amount of true observations that any single person will have made. The rest is purely a creation of that person's mind. The entire freaking understanding of the universe, or even the notion that there is a universe is a part of that.

The immense problem with trying to explain all this is that any explanation falls into itself as one point of view and is no longer truth once it has been spoken. It truly is something you must find out for yourself. This is all one point of view. You are expounding on another point of view. They have been created by us from observations of which I cannot say, and I believe them to be incompatible. Ive been far too wordy about this I think.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

I, however, do not rule out the possibility that the universe has an intrinsic meaning. But to say that some supernatural being must be behind it all in order for an intrinsic meaning to exist is nonsense. Your statement that we cannot find out what an intrinsic meaning to the universe is also nonsense. It could be true, but it you are just making assumptions.

2 questions for you:

1) I didn't say supernatural being. Some believe the divine logos is the universe itself. You have said it's a possibility that there is an intrinsic meaning to the universe. That possibility raises the question. What defines the meaning? If not a deity(s) or the essense of the universe itself?

2) You seem to believe it possibile for humans to understand the intrinsic meaning of the universe. You are assuming that 1 person can know the universe. Transcending time, space, knowing all that the universe is (for a general must know know of every soldier in his army before he can plan his attack, so one must know all that is in the universe before they can understand the plan that motivates it all). And I'm the one making assumptions? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Ive been far too wordy about this I think.

That you have.

*head explodes* http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

But thank you for your insight. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

edit: I also wanted to say that I like the way this thread is going. I thought this thread up after reading a bit of the 'Meditations' by Marcus Auralius. Who knows? Perhaps after I've studied Kant and Descartes a bit more I'll have realized this whole thread was pointless and I have no idea what the hell I've been babbling on about.

It has been fun though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 01-27-2006).]

your talking fuck9ing bullshit man!

the only "line" that exists is the one betwean delusion and reallity in your own mind, you fucking twat.

whats the point of having morals when your reality is so distorted like yours is.

fuck

im fine having reality and morals you cunt

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

2 questions for you:

1) I didn't say supernatural being. Some believe the divine logos is the universe itself. You have said it's a possibility that there is an intrinsic meaning to the universe. That possibility raises the question. What defines the meaning? If not a deity(s) or the essense of the universe itself?

2) You seem to believe it possibile for humans to understand the intrinsic meaning of the universe. You are assuming that 1 person can know the universe. Transcending time, space, knowing all that the universe is (for a general must know know of every soldier in his army before he can plan his attack, so one must know all that is in the universe before they can understand the plan that motivates it all). And I'm the one making assumptions? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Well, when you said "God" I assumed you meant some external deity out there. But alright.

I wouldn't think that anything would "define" the meaning. An intrinsic meaning would just be an aspect of the universe and/or of existence. If a god has to tell everyone what's important, then that would sound more like an extrinsic meaning. After all, what would happen if the god died or changed its mind?

And no, I am not saying it has to be possible to find an intrinsic meaning. I'm just saying it's foolish to say you can't find it, because there's still a while to go before we understand all that we can. Who knows what there is out there?

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Who knows what there is out there?

I'd be foolish not to agree with this idea. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:im fine having reality and morals you cunt

Err...good for you? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 01-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



I have asked, what are the other options? And what argument is necessary, Rust? The universe either has meaning, or it does not. Life either has meaning, or it doesn't. There either is an absolute right or wrong, or there isn't. Is it that difficult to understand? You challenge that my 2 options aren't the only ones. Give me another.



Your argument was not solely that the universe either has meaning or not. If that were so, the law of non-contradiction would suffice to prove that assertion. Your argument was much more than that; you said:

"1) The universe has form, function, restraint. It is meant to be the way it is.

Everything is a part of it; everything has meaning.

or

2) The universe is random, chaotic. There is no point to anything. No meaning. If this so then your life, and whatever you make of it, is meaningless. Justice is defined by those in power. Right and wrong are fully subjective, and therefore non-existant in any real terms. Your only true nature is self-preservation. Congratulations, you are nothing more than a self-aware animal."

Which has other allegations tied with it. But if you only meant to say "The universe either has meaning or not", then fine, you can ignore my objection if you want.

quote:

You didn't read then. I said if you believed in a chaotic, meaningless universe, to go no further. If you considered it a possibility that the universe carries a divine meaning, to read on. From that point on, I typed based on the assumption the reader already considered it a possibility, thus I didn't need to prove it a possibility.

You cannot prove that the idea of a 'meaningful universe' is a possibility to someone. That is a decision only they can make, out of their own desire for more. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Even if you were assuming that those who were going to be reading were those who believed in an universe with a divine meaning you still had not "established" anything.

There is a humongous difference between assuming something for the sake of argument, and actually proving that something. You may have done the former, but certainly not the latter.

quote:

I didn't use divine logic as evidence of existence. Existence is evident, whether we live in a chaotic or rational universe. Nowhere did I say "if devine logic did not exist, we wouldn't be here". I said "if divine logic didn't exist, life and the universe would be meaningless." I am suggesting that there is in fact 'meaning', but the only way to understand this 'meaning' is to first believe in it. Thus the title of the bloody thread and opening statement: Which comes first, faith or understanding?



Wrong. You are using it when you say:

"An atheist who claims they will believe in God if they see proof, when they understand His plan, will never understand it. They are stuck believing in a chaotic universe. Before you find understanding, before you find the proof you want, you must first accept that the universe has meaning (and it's not hard to do. For some, simply a moment of self-reflection and questioning of morals is enough to realize that somewhere there is meaning behind it all) before you can understand."

Using the "divine meaning" that the universe has, as proof that god exists (or simply as a way of "understanding god") is circular logic.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Using the "divine meaning" that the universe has, as proof that god exists (or simply as a way of "understanding god") is circular logic.

Ah. I think I get it. So (correct me if I misinterpreted you), the argument that faith can come before understanding is flawed because: You ask yourself, "How do I understand?" and the answer would be "Because I believe." And when asking yourself, "Why do I believe?" You'd answer "Because I understand."

That it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



Ah. I think I get it. So (correct me if I misinterpreted you), the argument that faith can come before understanding is flawed because: You ask yourself, "How do I understand?" and the answer would be "Because I believe." And when asking yourself, "Why do I believe?" You'd answer "Because I understand."

That it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Well, the argument is flawed because by saying that there is a divine meaning, you are already presupposing the existence of a "divine-meaning-giver", namely, god. You cannot then arrive at the existence of a god, by citing the existence of divine meaning - which necessitates the existence a god in the first place.

As for faith coming from understanding, you have yet to define understanding. One could say, depending on the definition being used, that faith precludes understanding to begin with.

And yes, if you understand because you believe, and believe because you understand, you're using circular logic.

How about we mess about with the tense on this to show one way the circular bit can be cleared up?

You were able to understand because you believed, and you continue to believe because you now understand.

Hows that?

The meaning of the universe comes from it's creator, the leprechauns. Apparently, "it's magically delicious".

They made men in their image from dried marshmallows.

We can't see the leprechauns because they move too fast (they are busy planting fake fossils and fucking up people's hair while they are asleep)

But we have evidence of their actions: the divinely inspired dinosaur fossils and bad hair days.