For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
Jason Eden responding to Tony Rotz- “…, I had to admit they all had plausible natural explanations. “
I have a problem with this emphasis on “supernatural” as some sort of criteria for God.
God, as the Entirety of all that is and all that potentially can be, trumps “supernatural”, at least in my book.
The creatures of “Flat Land” make up a lot of tales to fill in the gaps. Doesn’t mean that natural laws are somehow subverted. That’s just in their telling of it.
However, the above being said, we cannot leave the infinitude of sentience out of our speculations. Where, after all, does our’s come from?
Jason Eden – “brmckay, you are well within your rights to believe such, but I am well within my rights to ask for evidence before agreeing to believe the same, no?
As far as the origin of sentience, we are honing in on it as we speak, and I believe, based on what I’ve seen and read so far, that someday that “god of the gaps” argument will fall away just like all the others. Again, you are free to believe anything you want, but for me, evidence to support the affirmative is necessary in order to believe in it.”
I’m not sure that what I said should be couched in terms of belief.
But putting that aside, I’m curious what you mean by “someday that “god of the gaps” argument will fall away just like all the others. ”
Fall away from what? I want to assume, lack of fidelity.
Jason Eden – “brmckay – Zing, debate point yours. 🙂 [I will have to remember the `lack of fidelity` response for future use. Well done…]
As I’m sure you know, `god of the gaps` arguments are those that insert some supernatural (or perhaps metaphysical is a more accurate word) concept as an answer to questions not yet fully understood. Some would argue that because we do not yet understand our own sentience, we must assume it comes from a top-down source (i.e. `god` or a 5th-dimensional superbrain, or whatever). There is no evidence for this belief, but because the bottom-up development of sentience research is still in progress, some will automatically jump to the gap-based conclusion rather than continuing to follow the science and evidence.
The default position, in my opinion, should be the null hypothesis. We should reject belief in *anything* unless objective, positive proof of its existence is manifest. Otherwise, I can believe in just about anything (fairies, werewolves, leprechauns, Valhalla, etc.) and you have no basis for which to call my beliefs into question.”
I’m not kidding about “fidelity”. My orientation is strongly towards cultivation of authentic experience. Preconception and attachment will only delay results.
Hypothesis is better for the process than belief.
But I don’t, in fact can’t, limit myself to “bottom up” development.
Bottom up and top down is a dyad. A symptom of Flat Landian limitations. Ignoring singularity seems to me irrational.
Especially when contemplating the nature of God.
Feel free to substitute, Truth, Reality, Fidelity. Words is not what we’re talking about. Right?
Jason Eden – “I knew you weren’t kidding. I was complimenting you on your wordsmithing – taking what was my obvious dig at `god of the gaps` arguments and turning it around for a potentially positive meaning. Clever debate tactic, even if it is unhelpful in moving the discussion forward.
You are free to believe whatever you want without evidence. We may well be 3-dimensional Flatlanders unable to comprehend 4th and 5th dimensional time, space, and probabilities. We may well be guided by some external supernatural force we can’t comprehend. And the moment we have any evidence to support it, I’m on board with believing in it, or at least the possibility.
On the other hand, we already have evidence of bottom-up brain development via natural selection, via both biology and fossil records, as well as experiments in computational science. As such, I’m already on board with that. Bring me a shred of evidence for anything else, and we can have a discussion on that as well.”
I’ll have to quit using the Flat Landian analogy. It seems people assume I’m actually talking about more dimensions.
Sorry if I failed to move the discussion forward.
Perhaps next time.