I've been, and perhaps always had difficulty remembering memories. Talk of them makes me wonder if my relationship with my memories, are different from those that others have, with their memories. All that remains in place of what, I assume, should be something more than random glimpses of images, is just that. On top of that I believe these glimpses of images are heavily aesthetically skewed, or altogether made up, by concepts of fascination at the time. So it would not surprise you or, in this case since I am writing for myself, me when I say I don't know who exactly I am. Attempts at thinking back or surfacing recollections of my cognitive state at a previous time are futile, resembling attempts at entering buildings and rooms, whose interior does not exist, in games, or exploring my physical surroundings, of which I'm unaware of the state or any significant details, though my imagination or in my dreams.
Anyway so as you've read I do find myself an enigma in many ways. Unriddling these hidden knots in my understanding of self or myself will perhaps further my understanding of others as well. I intend, well it's really doesn't matter whether I desire it or not, self discovery is immanent in being alive, on being on a journey of self discovery throughout my life, or at least most of my life as I probably will want to lay this beast and companion down at some point. Getting back on point, this is why I will be recording my thoughts and observations of my psychological inclinations on this blog, leaving little notes and posts about my currant psychological whereabouts, to keep track of, organize (or maybe not as I usually find myself creating chaos rather then calming it), study and leave fractions of my psychic state, at the time of writing, for an older me, in order to assist him on the same journey I am on.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
Friday, 17 May 2013
Spectrum of theistic probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
This is a very useful tool in identifying your own position about God's existence. It breaks away from the idea that individuals are either theists or atheists. This gives more flexibility for people who aren't certain of both sides; it allows for the possibility that people many not feel one way or other about god's existence. The positions made available by this scale is anything from De facto theist to De facto atheist.
This is a very useful tool in identifying your own position about God's existence. It breaks away from the idea that individuals are either theists or atheists. This gives more flexibility for people who aren't certain of both sides; it allows for the possibility that people many not feel one way or other about god's existence. The positions made available by this scale is anything from De facto theist to De facto atheist.
The GOD Debate's Current Status
At this point in time the debate, about the existence of God, has come to a standstill; so far the debate has wound up at a position where it supports soft atheism, as the most rational position to take, on the matter of God's existence. Many arguments have been raised, from both the theist and atheist sides. A lot of them have been refuted and rejected, so there are really only a handful of arguments you'll need to brush up on, to get up to date with the debate on the existence of God.
1. As of now God is outside the domains of human interrogation, therefore it is impossible to prove or disprove his, her or it's existence. This means that neither the atheists nor theist side can rationally move to a gnostic position. Gnostic positions would be a definite belief in God's existence for the theists, and Hard Atheism for atheists. Assuming this much, individuals should now come to the conclusion that the God's existences has a 50/50 percent chance of being true, since God can either exist or not exist.
2. God doesn't get any special exceptions over other entities, whose existence, similarly to God's, cannot also be proven. Therefore God is simply another entity whose existence cannot be proven. Therefore the probability of God's existence must be whatever the probability of other entities, whose existence cannot be proven, is.
Here are lists of entities whose existence cannot be proven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures
Remember you cannot disprove the existence of any of these entities, similarly to how atheists cannot disprove the existence of God. It is also irrational to discard the existence of any of these entities, simply because of the lack of evidence that supports their existence. This is because similarly to God, these entities may also exist.
This means that the conclusion must be that the probability of the existence of God must be relatively low, at least as low as the existence of all the other entities. Actually the probability of the existence of all the other entities would higher than the probability of God's existence. This is simply because all the other entities are a lot more natural than God; this means that they may be a product of the practically observed and confirmed process of evolution, where as it would be a lot less likely that God was a product of evolution. If the probability of the existence of God is relatively low than the probability for the non existence of God must be relatively high; this justifies the assumption that there is no God, because the probability of his/her/it's existence is too low to acknowledge.
2. God doesn't get any special exceptions over other entities, whose existence, similarly to God's, cannot also be proven. Therefore God is simply another entity whose existence cannot be proven. Therefore the probability of God's existence must be whatever the probability of other entities, whose existence cannot be proven, is.
Here are lists of entities whose existence cannot be proven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures
Remember you cannot disprove the existence of any of these entities, similarly to how atheists cannot disprove the existence of God. It is also irrational to discard the existence of any of these entities, simply because of the lack of evidence that supports their existence. This is because similarly to God, these entities may also exist.
This means that the conclusion must be that the probability of the existence of God must be relatively low, at least as low as the existence of all the other entities. Actually the probability of the existence of all the other entities would higher than the probability of God's existence. This is simply because all the other entities are a lot more natural than God; this means that they may be a product of the practically observed and confirmed process of evolution, where as it would be a lot less likely that God was a product of evolution. If the probability of the existence of God is relatively low than the probability for the non existence of God must be relatively high; this justifies the assumption that there is no God, because the probability of his/her/it's existence is too low to acknowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)