Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Well, if you are looking for "truth" - that is, the "supreme reality" - then you are really assuming that the current physical reality that you eat, drink, breathe, and procreate in is NOT the complete picture.A question that comes to mind is: Why must there be more to life than what is around us?Another question that comes to mind is: Why couldn't the act of "living" be the purpose and meaning of life?To propose life as an illusion is to question physical reality as the supreme reality. That is a little like saying: "My eyes are telling me that the apple I hold in my hand is red, but how do I know what colour it really is?"To answer any of the questions in the above quote would require me to write a thesis, and I am afraid I simply don't have the time to do so (nor do I believe this forum would support such a notion). However, in answer to "what the hell is life all about?", I would suggest that life is the pursuit of happiness, as I observed that we tend to do things that maximise our happiness. Ahhhhhh....you're talking about prejudice - the notion of pre-judging based on experience and/or attitude. But as I stated previously, science is based on what evidence shows instead of what we WANT it to show, thus the scientific method is decidedly objective.I'm not saying that scientists are not subjective, but the method they use - if used properly - will minimise their bias to acceptable and useful levels. The pun was used intentionally. I have attended enough fellowship meetings to be familiar with Matthew 6:10-14. If proof exists only for those with a preconceived notion in their heads, then the evidence that was presented hardly qualifies as "proof" now, doesn't it? Choose from the following:I must believe that you're a police officer before your badge seem real to me.I must be shown that your badge is real before I place trust on your claim that you are a police officer. Because you're trying to describe the physical world using the bible. Science enhances our understanding of the physical realm through physical evidence. If you want to use the Bible to do the same, then you must play by the same rules. You don't. Which is why you are welcome to attack and criticise anything I say if you believe that I's engaging in MSU. Q.E.D. Hahahahahahaha.....so tell me, which of the Bible's prophecies enjoyed a more accurate (less vague) description than mine?In answer to some of the questions you posed: I wrote it, I wrote it in the last post, I wrote it to show you how ambiguous your so-called "evidence for the truth of the Bible" is, I wrote it in my house, I wrote it to you.As for the context, I would of course wait until a suitable event occurs (such as the judgment of Saddam Hussein) before applying my idiosyncratically worded prophecy to the situation - the art of post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias widely practiced by Christians worldwide! Now this is vague. Where did you derive all this from? No religious text could possible go into such detail, so I can only assume that you made it up.Pray tell me:How do angels, beings of metaphysical dimensions, materialised into the physical realm to wrestle with the wrestling world title defender Jacob? How does God, a being whose character cannot be restricted, restrict Himself into the form of a mortal human to be killed? Does God exist on all dimentions (even the first and second)?These are just some of the questions you have to answer when you want to explain the physical world with the dogmatic guide that is the Bible. Point 1: While many others and myself would consider "living happily" as the purpose of our lives, you and many others would search for other purposes that require life-long servitude. If that's what turns you on, who am I to argue (and why should I care)?Point 2: You seem to be taken in by the "this world is so wonderful there must be a reason for it" argument.Consider the following hypothetical scenario:There exists 200 trillion different realities, each had the potential of exploding into a universe and coming into existence but only 200 billion actually does.Out of the 200 billion universes, only 200 million has the capacity to develop suitable climates for life.Out of the 200 million life-supporting universes, only 200,000 can produce intelligent life.Out of those 200,000 intelligent-life producing universes, only 200 can produce life that is advanced enough to ponder "What the hell am I doing here?"Instead of using a self-centered approach to thinking - we are so important, we are so special, we are so unique, our world is so beautiful - why not consider the notion that we are one of the billions of life in billions of universes? Our complexity may pale in comparison to other civilisations out there - and I'm not just talking about space. The choice is in "belief". It has nothing to do with reality. If you must believe a preconceived notion in order to see reality as a case for your beliefs, then this is textbook example of post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias. I'm happy we're back on topic. Easy.Consider:I have the choice to pour HCL onto an anthill or to refrain from exercising my sadistic tendencies. If I choose to pour, then it will take me 30 seconds to bring death, destruction, pain and suffering upon the ants. Of course, the other choice is that I will simply let them do whatever they want.Now, if I pour the acid, I will hurt them for a short time, but then according to your reasoning, because I will never hurt them ever again: 30 seconds/infinity = zero. Therefore even if I caused undue pain and suffering on them, I really haven't done anything in the long run.Even though I may seem a monster and an absolute FW to the ants for those 30 seconds, I will act like an angel (that is, I will do nothing) in the rest of eternity (during the bulk of which I would be dead).So by your reasoning, I can do whatever the hell I damn well please to anything/anyone I want because in the long run, the consequences of my actions will approach zero.See the flaw in your reasoning?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: And you know that they are not bound by atomic matter because...? I don't see any evidence to suggest that we as intelligent lives must be unique or alone in existence, nor that we live in the only universe in existence. So yes, I certainly entertain those notions. Right, and the "injustice" that God created - is "righteous"...how?You justified the injustice God displays by saying that it will all be balanced out by His infinite glory in the long run. I've countered your argument by demonstating that your reasoning will write-off the consequences of ALL actions that doesn't last for eternity. Your point appears to be a desperate grasp at straws.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:You understand that our discussion has now progressed off topic? You have not addressed my points on post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias. I will, however, humour you with a reply to your last post. Reference?What do you mean by "accelerate faster than anything made of atomic matter could withstand"? I don't need to reply to it. You said he did: I think you just contradicted yourself there. I owe ants nothing. Anything less powerful than myself deserves my wrath right now, but I hold it off because I am a nice person (sometimes) and is willing to give them a chance to worship me during their pitifully short lifetime. This is grace. The fact that I allow the anthill in my garden to exist instead of pouring bleach down the hole is pure grace.Your reasoning makes no more sense than the above.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Well, this is not reasoning, this is an assertion. You're asserting that no matter what we observe in this physical reality, in the long run, the injustice we see now will be balanced out at some indefinite point in time. This is a mere claim.If you are going to assume that God's justice "IS", then I can also assume that Satan's (or God's) injustice "IS" and that no matter what good things happen in this world, we're all going to fry in the end.You're basing your claim on the Bible. I'm basing mine on my imagination. Both are unfounded. Both should be disregarded. Period. No. Your reasoning is hindered by an unsupported assertion. On what basis are you asserting that "God did not create injustice"? If you answer with "the bible", then you're again using dogma in debates. You/bible assert that we deserve God's wrath for sinning (disobeying God).By the same token, who are you to tell me whether or not an ant deserves my wrath? As you can clearly see, the ant has blatantly disobeyed my orders of "Kneel before my feet." and instead opted to "Eat ice-cream" and indulge in its sweet, sugary, sinful pleasures. Surely this disobediance is unacceptable to a being as great as I?!By the way, you have yet to refute my point on post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"