Religious Fallacy - Page 3

On July 05 2009 04:25 PH wrote:
http://www.usfca.edu/philosophy/pdf files/What Mary Didn't Know.pdf

I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.

What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.

However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-

Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.

Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.

So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.

On July 05 2009 07:26 Vedic wrote:


Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.

This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.

On July 05 2009 06:46 Chef wrote:
You sure it hasn't degenerated even further into a high school debate club full of pseudo intellectuals?

On July 05 2009 11:02 Caller wrote:

i'm not sure what's the difference

On July 05 2009 10:15 PH wrote:

I love how people like you push arguments not even doctors use. This is not a finished subject and is still being debated, and that's is hardly a solid argument. Get over yourself. Now let me give you a more solid answer myself:

There are questions science cannot answer that we are aware of.

Here's one great example...

The big bang is currently the most popular theory as to what caused the universe to form into what it is now. It is the "beginning" so to speak of how it exists now. I don't know specifics, but it's something like there existed all matter/energy (aren't they essentially considered the same thing now?) existed in one place which for whatever reason exploded out, and what we're living in is the result of that.

Ask any physicist or whatever expert in whatever "scientific" field. You won't find a single credible person who won't readily and easily admit that science can only answer and even talk about what happened just after the Big Bang. One of my professors even said something along the lines of, "whatever happened before the Big Bang belongs to religion and philosophy, not science".

What are you going to do now? Try to argue that until the big bang, the universe didn't exist? I think it's debatable that time even existed back then.

On July 05 2009 10:44 Chef wrote:
One can theorize that if the big bang happened, something must have been before the big bang, and that something was "god." But one has to admit that's a very unsound argument, because there's no more reason to believe god caused the big bang than there is to believe anything else did.

The Big Bang itself is a good theory because it's observable, and testable. We can explain things with it. We can't explain anything with "it was in god's plan." What isn't in god's plan? How can we even use that information? I might as well start thinking I'm schizophrenic and everything I interact with is a product of my imagination. It doesn't help me do anything. I can't test it or observe it or even utilize it.

What's unknown is unknown. What was there before the big bang? I don't know. That doesn't mean it was god, that doesn't mean it wasn't. That just means there's no argument (or theory) for either yet.

EDIT: I think it should also be mentioned that "The Big Bang" is not the answer to the question "How was the universe created?" It's the explanation for "Hey, everything in the universe seems to be moving out from one point, I wonder why that is? It wouldn't be a huge leap to say it all came from one point, and the only reason I can think of for everything to leave that point in a straight line is that there was an explosion." It's not necessarily what happened, but it's the most believable and USEFUL.

On July 05 2009 11:27 minus_human wrote:
There is no 'before' the Big Bang.

Time actually STARTED along with space, because as Einstein proved, matter and time are actually interacting.

One should absolve their mind of the general notion of time that we humans perceive. Time is not something universally independent, time and space are actually 'bent' around each other. Time can actually be 'faster' or 'slower', depending on local conditions.

I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread has not devolved into a slimy God fest by now.

On July 05 2009 12:57 Vedic wrote:


Simply because we currently don't understand what happened before the big bang does not mean that we won't. The scientific method works for things that can be TESTED. The answer has been, and always will be, a solid "we don't know," never a "must be this," until we figure it out. You seem to be uninformed on how the scientific method works, even at a fundamental level.

Additionally, there are basic theories in the works relating to string theory that could potentially explain the big bang. Kick this fake science habit, and do some solid research.

On July 05 2009 16:59 PH wrote:
Do you even understand the implications of what a complete physicalism entails? Do you even know what you're saying?

What makes you think that science can eventually solve all answers? What makes you believe that at some point in the distant future, there will no longer be such a thing as "subjective"? From what you're saying at this point, it honestly sounds like you're taking a leap of faith. How is that any different from the religious people you love to condemn? To be honest, it's comical.

I'm not a scientist, I study philosophy. I have never claimed science to be my forte or expertise in any way, but I'm quoting doctorates in physics I've actually talked with in real life. One of the cool things about science is that it can bend back on itself and shift/alter itself based upon new information; it's constantly updating itself.

If some new development in string theory really does think it can explain what occurred before the Big Bang, then that's great. If...IF...it ever works out and is finalized into a full blown scientific theory, then really, all that'll mean for me is one point towards physicalism, and one example the phenomenalist can no longer use.

However, that still does not suddenly destroy phenomenalism and prove that everything can be reduced physically. I at least understand how the scientific method works at a fundamental level...I won't try to parade myself as being something I'm not. That, however, is where the limitation of science lies...if it is not readily observable, recreatable and testable, then how do you prove it on a "scientific" basis?

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html

Do me, yourself and all of us a favor and try reading that. It's one of my favorite essays in philosophy, done by a contemporary philosopher named Thomas Nagel. Unfortunately, it was both the first and last of his works in the field. He takes the position of one who would be excited if physicalism were true, but finds what he believes to be an irreconcilable problem with it involving perspective and objectivity vs subjectivity. This essay is considered a classic in modern philosophy, and is definitely a head scratcher.

Even if you're not Vedic, I highly recommend that essay...it's a lot of fun.

On July 05 2009 21:25 Vedic wrote:
Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.

I don't give a shit about god or God or any other "supernatural being". My point was to bring up the fact that science cannot observe or test anything until after the big bang occurred.

On July 05 2009 21:25 Vedic wrote:


No matter what happens, science being unable to provide an answer does not prove anything aside from the fact that the universe is not set up in a way that facilitates the ability to grasp it's finer details. There is no faith in what I said - you simply didn't read it properly. I most specifically said that it is quite likely that we will figure it out in the future, but even if we don't, the answer will ALWAYS remain "we don't know" until we do.

Please, cite the people with physics doctorates you have spoken to, and the papers they have written. I'd very much like to see any sort of support for what you are saying circulating anywhere outside of the "intelligent design" community.

Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.

I already know the answer, and it is that you can not. You can't use a physical test against something that isn't physical, so you will never be able to transition from wild philosophical assumption to actual science. Not now, not later, not ever. On the flip side, every single test you ever do is a testament to the fact that the physical realm does indeed exist.

On July 06 2009 02:23 Chef wrote:

How insightful... ? I mean, that's kind of the folly of being born after the big bang, I guess. We can still make pretty good guesses as to what would be needed to make a big bang, and thus we can think of what happened just before it, maybe. Test things in our own world that DO exist, that we think are similar to the big bang. It's just kinda difficult to go there because you set up a string argument... We don't know for sure the big bang is what happened, it's just our best explanation. If it wasn't, then any time we spend on trying to explain what caused the big bang is wasted. Although I would be very shocked to hear we hadn't at least spent some time on it.

On July 06 2009 03:05 PH wrote:
lol...no, I'm done with you. You're not understanding what I'm saying, you're not properly understanding what we're talking about now, and yes, your faith that science and physicalism holds all the answers, just that we don't know them yet (or are capable of knowing them), in my opinion parallels religious faith.

Talking to you is like talking to an evangelist that relies on the same circular argument. Yes, by the way, you have been repeating the same circular argument over and over again. "Science is capable of testing all there is in the universe concretely, so anything that science can't test doesn't exist."

That's great...but I deny your premise. I deny that science is the end all be all, and I deny that just because it isn't physical, it doesn't exist.

I have written papers defending physicalism before, and just like the papers I wrote supporting phenomenalism, there were debatable and presumptuous premises that had to be made that any supporter of the opposition would jump on. There is a reason why it is still an active area of discussion today. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an undergrad dumb enough to try to debate this over the damn internet.

I doubt you even glanced at that paper I linked you to...no...something written by a respected philosopher doesn't concern you, does it? He's not a man of science...he dares to think outside the box, after all. You challenge me to give you information about the professor at my school and to somehow quote something he said in a lecture a year ago, and you don't even seem to have any respect for, nor put any stock into the discipline of philosophy...it's not even worth keeping this up with you.

On July 06 2009 00:50 duckett wrote:
You have isolated the debate incorrectly into your realm of what is scientifically testable right now. A physical test with reproducible results definitionally leads to results within the physical world. However, it is *possible* that there are nonphysical elements to reality that are fundamentally unprovable, and therefore beyond the scientific realm of consideration.

On July 06 2009 06:13 Vedic wrote:
This is both counter-intuitive to logic, and counter productive to an intelligent species.

On July 05 2009 23:13 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
"There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained YET "

On July 05 2009 07:26 Vedic wrote:


Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.

This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.