There is a guy nicknamed QualiaSoup in youtube that provides really proper and necessary knowledge about critical thinking and how simple it is to find out how wrong we can be sometimes. And since i am not the one who'll give you detailed information of this topic, i show you few must see videos of him. Of course you can find more in his channel.
Bump Edit: There were so many responds and criticism to this thread once. After the Sc2 release and such there are so many new people between us and i kinda feel the need to open this discussion with bumping the thread again. QualiaSoup and ThereminTrees(Qualia's brother) added new videos about morality, god, gimmicks, games etc. so i would like to add them to the op too but i just can't edit them. Anyways again, you will find a lot more in the videos.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school? Does being skeptic a good aproach to moral related discussions? Can morality be objective? Anything related with videos.
hahahaha, in the faith video im like "if he doesnt try to refute william lang craig this video sucks" then he mentions him. xD
edit/ not really enjoying the faith video too much now, he basically just says all the arguments for ontology, theistic etc etc beliefs are "doomed" but without actually addressing them/attempting to refute. i'm not a theist or anything, but as a voracious reader of these topics, i'm a bit letdown by his dawkins-esque dismissal of those "doomed" arguments.
critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
The LISTENING part of critical thinking is so underrated these days..
Religion does entail some old forms of thought, but their principles and concept are certainly useful to look at. The key is to discern what is useful and what is not. That's where critical thinking comes in. Simply calling religious people morons is not a solution; it only compounds the problem. Also, trying to use formally sound logical arguments and such to force a view on a religious person is not the right approach. It's important to listen first, then to internally question, and then to be willing to sacrifice personal convictions to reach new conceptions. This must be done on BOTH sides.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
This is the only reason I didn't play this in any of my classes, because I need to fit in socially for the good of the society, not for my self-fish self preservation!!!!
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
Don't worry, religious people are doing a fine job in that regard without any help from him.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
I was mostly fine with the way he dealt with the faith issue. He made a point to mention that this was directed towards people who try to force their religions on others. I just zoned out for the last half because I believe that the best way to deal with people like that is to ignore them, not try to argue with them. As some TL poster's sig sums it up: "never try to argue with an idiot; they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." People like that are not worth my time.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
In English, the preferred term is "rebirth," and it depends. Some Buddhists see it as no more than an evolving of consciousness.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
In English, the preferred term is "rebirth," and it depends. Some Buddhists see it as no more than an evolving of consciousness.
Pretty sure that the 2 words are synonyms and that what is preferred is like arguing wheter or not colour is in fact not spelled color...
And the fact that Dalai Lama believes it to be an actual reincarnation/rebirth seems to still make my original point valid...
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
In English, the preferred term is "rebirth," and it depends. Some Buddhists see it as no more than an evolving of consciousness.
Pretty sure that the 2 words are synonyms and that what is preferred is like arguing wheter or not colour is in fact not spelled color...
And the fact that Dalai Lama believes it to be an actual reincarnation/rebirth seems to still make my original point valid...
Oh, you were giving a jeopardy-style contradiction? Reincarnation isn't really a scientifically observable claim, and logic can't call it meaningless. The Buddhist doctrine that is derived from reincarnation (as far as I am aware) is generally life-affirming and not hostile to non-believers, so there wouldn't be any reason to argue against it.
On May 02 2010 10:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: isn't it a metaphysical idea though
I wouldn't consider it one. Metaphysics as "transcending physics" or the physics of physics, would only refer to deities or other creatures that control how the universe works.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
On May 02 2010 10:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: isn't it a metaphysical idea though
I wouldn't consider it one. Metaphysics as "transcending physics" or the physics of physics, would only refer to deities or other creatures that control how the universe works.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive.
I said that mainly due to B... And no, they shouldn't, perhaps you think so, but that is your personal opinion and not a fact, stop stating stuff like facts.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be.
On May 02 2010 10:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:05 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:04 Ghostcom wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:53 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:35 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive.
I said that mainly due to B... And no, they shouldn't, perhaps you think so, but that is your personal opinion and not a fact, stop stating stuff like facts.
Why shouldn't a person consider his opinions as facts? Wouldn't he be a terribly drab person, always self-contradicting?
"Philosophy. a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth. b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance."
Doesn't necessarily have to deal with deities that control the universe, etc.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be.
On May 02 2010 10:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:05 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:04 Ghostcom wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:53 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:35 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive.
I said that mainly due to B... And no, they shouldn't, perhaps you think so, but that is your personal opinion and not a fact, stop stating stuff like facts.
Why shouldn't a person consider his opinions as facts? Wouldn't he be a terribly drab person, always self-contradicting?
Because facts are something objective which a subjective thing can never become? And you just describe the best scientist
I'm a skeptic of all that is considered to be facts! For example, I once question whether gravity is a fact. So I test it by dropping large quantity of rocks off a cliff to see if one of them would defy gravity and not get pull toward earth. I failed miserably on my attempt to disprove gravity, so I have to accept gravity as a fact that is reproducible under the same testing condition.
On May 02 2010 09:35 Lixler wrote: [quote] In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be.
On May 02 2010 10:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:05 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:04 Ghostcom wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:53 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:35 Lixler wrote: [quote] In the age of nihilism, they certainly are. Especially people whose religion has any kind of metaphysical assertions.
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive.
I said that mainly due to B... And no, they shouldn't, perhaps you think so, but that is your personal opinion and not a fact, stop stating stuff like facts.
Why shouldn't a person consider his opinions as facts? Wouldn't he be a terribly drab person, always self-contradicting?
Because facts are something objective which a subjective thing can never become? And you just describe the best scientist
Nothing is truly objective, and nothing is truly subjective. The subject and object are both fictions.
You can always play the "reality could simply be an illusion/the matrix/a dream/ etc..." card; the point stands that nothing is truly completely 'knowable' or 'fact'. However, from a practical standpoint that viewpoint is futile outside of reminding us that we shouldn't close our minds.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
With using proper arguments you can actually claim that someone is wrong. He doesn't bash anyone he just explains things intellectually if you think he is wrong then you need to write your arguments here. And he also says in faith video that most of religious people know that they can't prove their religion and they live for thyself which he has no problem with. Watch the video again.
On May 02 2010 09:33 zulu_nation8 wrote: critical thinking is nice but i don't like the examples he uses. I only went through one video but he seems to want to make religious people look like idiots.
What other examples could he of used? Would using examples of scientoligists be less offensive o.o
dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
On May 02 2010 16:13 tinman wrote: dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
On May 02 2010 16:13 tinman wrote: dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
On May 02 2010 16:13 tinman wrote: dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
Don't make ad hominem here please. No one becomes critical thinker with watching few videos on it, whoever thinks like that basically wrong but you can actually discuss on some of his arguments instead of labeling him as a blowhard. Gaining critical thinking is a progress and needs time because of its development in mind claims that you could have done wrong and still behaving wrong about so many things. Scepticism doesn't care about what you feel on believes or ideologies it only deals with facts.
On May 02 2010 16:13 tinman wrote: dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
On May 02 2010 16:13 tinman wrote: dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
"Quotes don't make arguments"
-Mark Twain
i dont think that quote is meant to be refuting
lol, yeah that's the joke..
oh i thought he was being retarded, im going to the high thread now where i belong.
On May 02 2010 16:33 Aelfric wrote: Don't make ad hominem here please. No one becomes critical thinker with watching few videos on it, whoever thinks like that basically wrong but you can actually discuss on some of his arguments instead of labeling him as a blowhard. Gaining critical thinking is a progress and needs time because of its development in mind claims that you could have done wrong and still behaving wrong about so many things. Scepticism doesn't care about what you feel on believes or ideologies it only deals with facts.
to be honest man i really can't make sense of most of your post there. not trying to be all ad hominem, but that english doesn't exactly pan out. anyway here is mypoint:
you have a notion that this magical thing called skepticism allows you to transcend such intellectual confines as feelings, beliefs, & ideologies and "only deal with facts." but you're wrong. for many reasons but the one that's coming to mind here is that the idea of a fact is part of an ideology. likewise the blowhard that made that youtube video has this notion that "critical thinking" consists of eschewing biases of culture and upbringing. that notion is demonstrably a bias of culture and upbringing.
the thing is that all of these arguments have been had out before by brilliant individuals and at great length. you're going to find them in books, though, not on youtube. hate to be the one who had to break it to you.
tinman which part of "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" did you not understand? Why don't you walk the path of making some of these argument that you mention, instead of telling us you know about them?
On May 02 2010 17:06 rei wrote: tinman which part of "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" did you not understand? Why don't you walk the path of making some of these argument that you mention, instead of telling us you know about them?
I think that argument by matrix reference is one of my favorite things to see.
because the point i was making is that philosophical positions of any real sophistication take gigantic efforts to elaborate?
do you understand what i am saying? i am saying it is patently outside of the scope of youtube to tackle a concept as historically freighted as skepticism. just like it is patently outside the capacity of this internet forum to sustain the sort of philosophical debate that tends toward conclusions rather than towards multiplying disagreements.
are you looking for a sound bite? sorry, man, i got no quote nearly as cute as "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." fresh out, dude.
But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it
The guy made those youtube videos to show people the door and we are the one that has to walk through it by actively practice critical thinking on everything around us.
On May 02 2010 17:24 rei wrote: But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it
The guy made those youtube videos to show people the door and we are the one that has to walk through it by actively practice critical thinking on everything around us.
Rather, that guy is rehearsing a stand-up routine that has been invented several hundred years ago that sends people through some kind of "door" but then confines them to quite narrow boundaries while they are having the feeling of being freed from all of them.
On May 02 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: because the point i was making is that philosophical positions of any real sophistication take gigantic efforts to elaborate?
do you understand what i am saying? i am saying it is patently outside of the scope of youtube to tackle a concept as historically freighted as skepticism. just like it is patently outside the capacity of this internet forum to sustain the sort of philosophical debate that tends toward conclusions rather than towards multiplying disagreements.
are you looking for a sound bite? sorry, man, i got no quote nearly as cute as "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." fresh out, dude.
You are dismissing people on this internet forum because they are outside the capacity to sustain the sort of philosophical debate base on what fact?
Maybe you and I have a different interpretation of what fact is, for me fact means provable concept.
I'm not looking for a sound bite, i'm looking for a free lesson from a philosophical capable individual such as yourself. So that I can be enlighten by your real sophisticated gigantic effort when you elaborate yourself.
I like to think very highly of everybody until they proven themselves otherwise, instead of thinking lowly of others and make them prove themselves to be worthy of a decent debate.
On May 02 2010 17:27 Aesop wrote: Rather, that guy is rehearsing a stand-up routine that has been invented several hundred years ago that sends people through some kind of "door" but then confines them to quite narrow boundaries while they are having the feeling of being freed from all of them.
What about those of us who have no prior knowledge of this invention several hundred years ago, but derived the same logic and came to the same conclusion as those who did hundred years ago? From this point of view that youtube guy is not rehearsing he's reaffirming these arguments. and on top of that what fact do you have that this guy is rehearsing someone else's work? for all you know he could came up with this conclusion independently like many others before him.
What narrow boundaries confinement? are you referring to his choice of examples of usage of critical thinking? I am guessing the reason he choose those examples were because they are closer to people's daily life, so that the audiences can have a easier time to make a connection between the new concept and what they been experiencing. It is a lot easier for metacognition to take place if you connect the new concept in question to their passed experiences.
On May 02 2010 17:24 rei wrote: But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it
The guy made those youtube videos to show people the door and we are the one that has to walk through it by actively practice critical thinking on everything around us.
Rather, that guy is rehearsing a stand-up routine that has been invented several hundred years ago that sends people through some kind of "door" but then confines them to quite narrow boundaries while they are having the feeling of being freed from all of them.
The boundaries that are becoming more narrow are simply new boundaries that are added. The new boundaries would be the border between what is plausible within a framework of critical thought, and what seems implausible or simply false. And in between is a huge area of information for which you cannot confirm or deny its truth, and also information that has no use of being evaluated. Besides the tools that are given to you in the room behind the door, you can keep any other methodologies for reasoning and have your own boundaries.
I think i get tinman's point but i still don't understand why not to discuss or explain something in a basic level that already been talked about for years. Everyone shouldn't supposed to be same level of knowledge. Also its not exactly relevant with our current discussion but in this video he also explains his thoughts about youtube videos.
For those who are interested, a great introduction to skepticism is Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". People do get "converted" but probably not many by youtube videos.
On May 02 2010 18:17 Wonders wrote: For those who are interested, a great introduction to skepticism is Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". People do get "converted" but probably not many by youtube videos.
Because of its popularity youtube videos can be a good start for so many things.
On May 02 2010 16:13 tinman wrote: dude is a blowhard, but the marketable part of the videos is that it gives people who desperately need it the sensation that they, too, are one of the select few critical thinkers with the intellectual wherewithal to see through the bullshit that everyone else cherishes so dearly in their unregenerate state.
oldest fucking racket in the book.
"if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. but if you really make them think; they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis (1878-1937)
I fail to understand why you have a problem with a guy trying to teach people critical thinking. Imo we need as much of this as possible. This guys videos should be taught in schools.
"Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
Its not like logic solves everything, problem solving abilities - intelligence is much more and has all to do with also understanding emotions, body, instincts in a skillful and purposeful way , where logic can apply to all of these elements.
So basicly - he`s right and not right because its not complete and it doesn`t state that incompleteness and if someone assumes its complete - then they might make their way on the wrong assumption, until they realize that.
Its not like reason is our first intelligence even , remember any situation where you socialize with buddies - is it really logic that is the guiding force ?
I fail to understand why you have a problem with a guy trying to teach people critical thinking. Imo we need as much of this as possible. This guys videos should be taught in schools.
You can't teach critical thinking in a 10 minute youtube vid. The danger is if someone watches it once, thinks "I r teh critical think", and then lives their life believing their prejudices have been justified.
But its a good introduction for people willing to learn more.
On May 02 2010 21:59 UFO wrote: Its not like logic solves everything, problem solving abilities - intelligence is much more and has all to do with also understanding emotions, body, instincts in a skillful and purposeful way , where logic can apply to all of these elements.
So basicly - he`s right and not right because its not complete and it doesn`t state that incompleteness and if someone assumes its complete - then they might make their way on the wrong assumption, until they realize that.
Its not like reason is our first intelligence even , remember any situation where you socialize with buddies - is it really logic that is the guiding force ?
logic as a closed system is perfect, but human thought is not. the youtube author nor anyone in here that Ive seen sugested that the human thinking is perfect, but theyre pointing that it is the most useful when it follows logical guidelines and not rely on baseless faith.
when you're socializing.. I could make the argument that you are in fact applying many devices of logic to make jokes and correlate stories and topics, but I'm just gonna throw out the non-sequitur card instead.
thx 4 videos OP I liked the second one which was like critical rationalism 101
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I think you're confusing critical thinking with critical theory.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I think you're confusing critical thinking with critical theory.
On May 02 2010 22:57 duckett wrote: haha this guy's videos are so terrible. just pretentious crap that makes far too many assumptions to be metaphyiscally relevant *in my opinion*.
and by not specifying "assumptions," you aren't any better, are you?
the clips are actually saying not to assume or take a leap of faith unless you have all the information that allows you to deduce with certainty (which is just a scientific method). i find that the narrator is boring and maybe "terrible," but the content itself is basic science, perhaps with a "pretentious" label of critical thinking.
but i think the issue is not critical thinking, but attention span in your case.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity.
what does this mean?
or rather, what basis do you have for the statement?
I think it's fine to teach philosophical concepts over youtube. Furthermore the topic in the videos isn't really something you can find in a book anyway. The "critical thinking" it preaches is a set of skills, I guess logical thinking skills, that are developed over time in pretty much every academic discipline.
On May 02 2010 21:59 UFO wrote: Its not like logic solves everything, problem solving abilities - intelligence is much more and has all to do with also understanding emotions, body, instincts in a skillful and purposeful way , where logic can apply to all of these elements.
So basicly - he`s right and not right because its not complete and it doesn`t state that incompleteness and if someone assumes its complete - then they might make their way on the wrong assumption, until they realize that.
Its not like reason is our first intelligence even , remember any situation where you socialize with buddies - is it really logic that is the guiding force ?
This is more or less my problem also. The examples he uses such as someone who believes in God or UFOs imply religion or anything based on faith or contains irrational, non-scientific thinking can be easily disassembled by logic, which is one of the characteristics of when positivist thinking is used in a negative connotation.
hnr)rt I am a little skeptical because I have not yet heard anyone who associate the concept of critical thinking with critical theory, I will pay more attention though.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
I just read a bit of that and forgive me if it sounds rubbish but: It does apply, but the logic that I know of, and adopt as mine, doesn't aim to prove or disprove every possible theorem either. Thats what I meant by closed system. Its perfect in its boundaries. It's when it's out of itself that it can become garbage.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
While were on the subject can anyone recommend a good introductory book on critical thinking? I'm looking for something concise. I've looked at a few books but they all get mixed reviews (by individuals whose expertise on the subject I'm entirely ignorant of). Is critical thinking a subject as structured and tested as say the scientific method?
Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics. Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics. Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more. Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
On May 03 2010 03:23 zulu_nation8 wrote: hnr)rt I am a little skeptical because I have not yet heard anyone who associate the concept of critical thinking with critical theory, I will pay more attention though.
You are perhaps right to be skeptical. You can call it an educated guess. Google seems to be useless when trying to pin down the exact origin of that phrase, "critical thinking." But the word "critical" as it is so often used in the academia nowadays tends to carry the connotations of the thought and the writings of the Frankfurt school. I found this, for example:
In Counterrevolution and Revolt Marcuse writes: "Making the university 'relevant' for today and tomorrow means, instead, presenting the facts and forces that made civilization what it is today and what it could be tomorrow--and that is political education. For history indeed repeats itself; it is this repetition of domination and submission that must be halted, and halting it presupposes knowledge of its genesis and of the ways in which it is reproduced: critical thinking." For both critical theorists and critical educators then, the development of this critical lens is the goal of education, but it also is a tool that must be brought to bear on educational systems themselves and the ways that they perpetuate unequal divisions of power and social injustices.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
I think it's better to encourage critical thought(and philosophy in general), but on a personal level. Teach people to keep an open mind. Most people take things they are taught, file them as "absolute truth", and never challenge it again. This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world.
I do agree, it is sometimes better to accept established conventions in the interest of social peace.
But which matters are those? Who gets to say?
By encouraging critical thinking you encourage intellectual discussion. We don't have to have people arguing about this and that and every little thing. People can discuss matters and come to consensuses. This is often how it works now and I see nothing wrong with it.
It is important to have people question their selves and the worlds they create. Otherwise they become stupid and reliant.
On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote: Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics. Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics. Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more. Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
How about if someone told you that you just made a bunch of logical mistakes ?
On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote: Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics. Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics. Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more. Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
How about if someone told you that you just made a bunch of logical mistakes ?
If critical thinking is applying logic, and only logic, then you can't really call it thinking. A computer applies logic, and only logic, but you never speak of a computer as thinking (except as a metaphor). Part of critical thinking must be something that is not just applying logic, but a human activity prone to human failure.
On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote: Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics. Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics. Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more. Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
How about if someone told you that you just made a bunch of logical mistakes ?
Please help me correct my mistakes
everything from the 3rd line on is questionable, you're basically shitting all over yourself over how great logic is. It's also logic the singular and not logics. Great scientific discoveries usually have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with creative thinking.
On May 03 2010 04:08 Badjas wrote: If critical thinking is applying logic, and only logic, then you can't really call it thinking. A computer applies logic, and only logic, but you never speak of a computer as thinking (except as a metaphor). Part of critical thinking must be something that is not just applying logic, but a human activity prone to human failure.
I am pretty sure we don't call it thinking in the instance of the computer because we do not believe they have a mind. They do not experience "thought".
On May 03 2010 03:45 rei wrote: Critical thinking for me is a practice of logics. Being skeptical of everything is a by-product of practicing logics. Logics is a necessity for the survival of human as a race and as a civilization Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics. Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create.
Think of logics as a key that opens up a person's mind to sciences, math and so much more. Human became the dominate specie in this planet because of our ability to apply logic to everything, not because we are best fit for our environment through evolution. We don't adapt to the environment if we don't have to, we change our environment with our technology which is derive from logics.
Every single technology we rely on as a race derive from logics = assumption and heavy generalization, signposts for logical mistakes - humans posses relatively average logic, comparision to artificial intelligence and to its effectivness - however they posses a guiding force for logic, which is the foundation for creativity. Recall what truly guides you when you talk with someone - and more importantly how you developed your social skills. If that was thanks to logic alone - you would have to posses a very advanced analysing machine, like high class computer.
Even the simplest stone spear in the stone ages requires logical thought to create = well, logic in itself is analysis and comparision - so one could argue that some ancient tools were not fruits of logic, certainly not all and not completely because comparision and analising capabilities of humans are not enough in themselves.
I am not disregarding logic, by any means - human race, mostly doesn`t posses any considerable logical capabilities and that so many of them think that they have everything thanks to their logic - is only one of many logical mistakes they fall into.
On May 03 2010 04:08 Badjas wrote: If critical thinking is applying logic, and only logic, then you can't really call it thinking. A computer applies logic, and only logic, but you never speak of a computer as thinking (except as a metaphor). Part of critical thinking must be something that is not just applying logic, but a human activity prone to human failure.
I am pretty sure we don't call it thinking in the instance of the computer because we do not believe they have a mind. They do not experience "thought".
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world.
In a way, this is the most important statement in your post, since everything else follows from it, more or less. Some think that, what they call the ignorance of the masses is a major "problem" that can be solved. Others are much more pessimistic. This is just the old debate (mainly originating in 18th century France) between the Enlightenment enthusiasts and its critics, between liberals and conservatives. I don't think it is much use to try to resolve it here...
On May 03 2010 04:08 Badjas wrote: If critical thinking is applying logic, and only logic, then you can't really call it thinking. A computer applies logic, and only logic, but you never speak of a computer as thinking (except as a metaphor). Part of critical thinking must be something that is not just applying logic, but a human activity prone to human failure.
I am pretty sure we don't call it thinking in the instance of the computer because we do not believe they have a mind. They do not experience "thought".
Indeed, what are you trying to point out here?
That your example of us not referring to a computer as "thinking" isn't very useful in this situation.
Were you trying to say that consciousness is necessary for critical thinking? Because that seems redundant as we seem to agree that consciousness is necessary for thinking in general.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world.
In a way, this is the most important statement in your post, since everything else follows from it, more or less. Some think that, what they call the ignorance of the masses is a major "problem" that can be solved. Others are much more pessimistic. This is just the old debate (mainly originating in 18th century France) between the Enlightenment enthusiasts and its critics, between liberals and conservatives. I don't think it is much use to try to resolve it here...
well I just like discussing things with you and some others I am not too worried about what I resolve or don't resolve
Saw the first video. What he says is true, but nothing I didn't already know. His monotone and lack of examples detract hugely from the teaching power he could have.
On May 02 2010 21:44 HnR)hT wrote: "Critical thinking" is a cheap substitute for the real thing. The word "critical" has been so tarred with an ideological subtext, one of Freudian and Marxist provenance, in the academia that it's best to avoid using it altogether if possible. "Critical thinking" stinks of that same subtext. It could not mean a skeptical turn of mind, because it implies an all-purpose fix for everything that is not right with humanity. In schools it instills unthinking disrespect for social convention among those who are too young to know better. As Jacques Barzun has said, the only alternative to convention is force. Without a degree of unquestioned adherence to convention for convention's sake, no civilization could exist.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say by this. Unquestioned adherence. Why is this necessary? Why not skeptical adherence - an interest in constant improvement?
You can never justify everything to everyone's satisfaction using pure reason. On some matters it is better to accept established conventions (however arbitrary they may be from a rationalist point of view), in the interest of social peace, than to subject all aspects of society to endless argument and revision.
This type of ignorance is a big problem in the world.
In a way, this is the most important statement in your post, since everything else follows from it, more or less. Some think that, what they call the ignorance of the masses is a major "problem" that can be solved. Others are much more pessimistic. This is just the old debate (mainly originating in 18th century France) between the Enlightenment enthusiasts and its critics, between liberals and conservatives. I don't think it is much use to try to resolve it here...
well I just like discussing things with you and some others I am not too worried about what I resolve or don't resolve
@UFO Seems to me that I have a misunderstanding of what logic is. I thought logic is the study of reasoning, Both analysis and comparison are methods of reasoning, Hence I don't fully understand how one can argue something derive from analysis and comparison yet illogical in the same time, provided they only have excess to limited information and resource at the time. Can you elaborate more about this with an example please?
@Badjas Thanks for clarifying, when I use the word logic, i actually put clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, significance, fairness and anything and everything relates to reasoning together as a whole concept.
On May 03 2010 04:38 rei wrote: @UFO Seems to me that I have a misunderstanding of what logic is. I thought logic is the study of reasoning, Both analysis and comparison are methods of reasoning, Hence I don't fully understand how one can argue something derive from analysis and comparison yet illogical in the same time, provided they only have excess to limited information and resource at the time.
The point is that it doesn`t necessarily derive from analysis and comparision.
Besides, do you know any other methods of reasoning that wouldn`t be these two or their result ?
When you use only the word logic, it is deceiving in my mind, when you mean a more broader concept. I am used to the computer kind of logic and everything else to me is not logic, but typically an approximation by human thought with possible human error. Edit: Bleh I am not happy with how I phrased this but my mind is in no state to improve it. Edit2: ah let me add: Thinking is more than applying logic in a perfect/infallible manner no matter how you do it.
Isnt skepticism about Relying on the best, most verifiable and reliable information on a subject, instead of basing your thoughts on ideology and arguments borne more out of belief than fact? Thats what I try to apply. Perhaps understanding that you cannot know much, and that facts change as new discoveries are made is at the core of it. Believing critical thinking to be a hoax is a fun proposal, wonder what the genius who scoffs at thinking does to make his conclusions. Scientism is a stupid term borne out of ignorance, by people who want to "level" the playing field between science and religion, ignoring the fact that only one of them is based on evidence and a way of testing things.
People here seem to be basing the discussion too much on some random youpoop, makes for skewed discussions. Check out the skeptics guide to the universe if you like dorky science news in a entertaining podcast package.
Btw - Why some people talk shit about those videos, they are really good and I see no reason to disregard them, presented logic is sound and gives an inightful view about beliefs, prejudice and overal reasoning rules.
I thought critical thinking was about recognizing that all of your decisions are based on assumptions, identifying your assumptions, and addressing how valid those assumptions are.
The problem with critical thinking tends to be, The plenitude with which it's applied, It's an issue not of faith but of degree, And application to everything descried
Whether 'tis a holdover from times long past, A reminder of the Age of Enlightenment, With the philosophical arts downcast, Reduced to a trite faux-entertainment
Or a gradual move to empiricism, From a worldview that prized, Development over religious schism, And all that we could see with our own eyes.
A truth that can only be found in the laboratory, Is worth less than graffiti in the lavatory...
Watched a few of them as well... Pretty basic stuff, and a few (okay, quite a few) errors (that second video on faith). I'm glad he mentioned Craig, too bad all he did was make assertions, mangled assertions...
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
A) That is a pretty idiotic statement. B) Science and religion aren't ideological opponents
A) Why do you say that? B) You're right, but they certainly should be.
On May 02 2010 10:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:05 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 10:04 Ghostcom wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:53 Lixler wrote:
On May 02 2010 09:40 zulu_nation8 wrote: [quote]
I don't understand, who said we're in an age of nihilism and which religions don't make any metaphysical assertions.
It should be pretty evident that the current age is nihilistic at root. Take any political controversy as evidence.
Buddhism doesn't make metaphysical assertions of the nature that are relevant to logic.
What is reincarnation?
Seriously, why can't the 2 groups not just leave each other alone? Calling each other "idiots, retards, emotionally retarded, inhumane" doesn't really do any good for either side, does it?
Either side which doesn't see the degradation and extermination of its ideological opponents as good is probably going to be without value.
That's nonsense.
Dissent is good regardless of the truth of its claims.
It is, but nobody should consider dissent from what they think positive.
I said that mainly due to B... And no, they shouldn't, perhaps you think so, but that is your personal opinion and not a fact, stop stating stuff like facts.
Why shouldn't a person consider his opinions as facts? Wouldn't he be a terribly drab person, always self-contradicting?
Because facts are something objective which a subjective thing can never become? And you just describe the best scientist
Nothing is truly objective, and nothing is truly subjective. The subject and object are both fictions.
Nothing is truly objective, and nothing is truly subjective... Then what are they? And if we're talking about a fiction, then whose fiction? Mine, or yours, or someone elses? And what is a semi-objective semi-subjective thing? Objectively subjective, subjective objective? Where's the contradiction in all of this?
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
Depends what community you're from (by which I also mean what part of the world). I've met many reasonable atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc. And I've also met a lot of unreasonable people who go by the same names. Certain movements and groups can carry certain stigmas as well, that no one wants to associate with (i.e. Westboro Baptist, "brights"). But that said, seems to be human nature that we paint with a brush so large...
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
Depends what community you're from (by which I also mean what part of the world). I've met many reasonable atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc. And I've also met a lot of unreasonable people who go by the same names. Certain movements and groups can carry certain stigmas as well, that no one wants to associate with (i.e. Westboro Baptist, "brights"). But that said, seems to be human nature that we paint with a brush so large...
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Why would a religious person 'have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things'? Just because a person believes that some sort of higher being created everything means he has to believe every other possible belief that cannot be neither proven nor unproven? No.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion (i.e. agnostics from a naturalist background, or agnostics from a religious background). Because lets not forget, you arrive at a conclusion through logic by taking into consideration certain proofs. I'm not entirely sure how you wind up with "agnostic logic".
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
This site really does have everything, doesn't it?
Someone mentioned that science and religion are not ideologically opposed. I would argue that they are. Here's why:
Posters touched earlier on the idea of subjectivity vs objectivity, before taking a brief detour toward solipsism. I think what we call reality can best be described as expectations being met. If we observe something, or perform an action, and our expectations about what we will see happen next are met, then the model of reality we have in our head is a good one. Closing the gap between expectations and results is how we learn, and it's at the core of all human existence. It's how we learn to move our limbs, speak, relate to others - everything. We are emotionally and mentally predisposed to reduce our uncertainty.
Leaving aside how that led to the invention of religion in the first place, there came a point when religion and science parted company. The various scientific methods employed down the ages strive to allow us to predict outcomes with ever greater accuracy. They reduce the range of expected future events. Religion, on the other hand, has over the same period of time gone from making specific claims and statements about how god works and how he interacts with our lives, to statements that either permit any eventuality or are self-fulfilling. Gods who walked among us have become invisible and intangible. Gods who once would assist the faithful and smite their enemies now provide silent 'spiritual strength' to help the faithful endure on their own. At one point in the Old Testament an actual scientific experiment is proposed to determine which set of believers is right. These days, believers are very quick to point out that science cannot touch god.
That is why I say science and religion are ideologically opposed; not because of what science or religion might have to say about a particular subject, but because of the divergent journey each is taking.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
It might help if you examined the ideas of faith and belief in the classical sense, and in the Enlightenment / post-enlightenment (esp. post-Hegelian / Kierkegaardian) sense. It could possibly be reasonably asserted that religious people lack scientific proof, but other proofs (such a philosophical), I'm not so sure the claim can be made so easily.
I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
I'm sure this is going to get lost in the mire or else simply be a repeat of what some others had eventually pointed out, but after reading through several pages of this thread, I felt some things needed clarification.
1. Critical thinking, or logic, is not the "be all, end all" system that some people seem to think it is, and those youtube videos never make the claim that it is. That said, it is an important set of skills that provides us with what history seems to suggest is our best way of understanding the world. The claims that some people make that not everything can be logically justified to everyone's satisfaction, and so certain things must be simply accepted in the interesting of practicality are perfectly valid and also an example of a logical argument. They do not make critical thinking or the importance of evidence any less important; on the contrary they provide an example of why critical thinking is important. It is important to evaluate the benefits of evidence with the practical difficulty of obtaining it in mind.
2. Some people seem to be upset over the use of a youtube video and a video game forum thread to discuss some fairly deep things. They dismiss these as insufficient media for the discussion of complex and historied topics. Their feelings are an example of an opinion and shouldn't be attacked by those who want to discuss these topics, just as they shouldn't insist that others can't cold a discussion.
3. Someone claimed that people should believe that their opinions are fact and prefer the expansion of their own beliefs to the extinction of all others in order for their beliefs to be practically useful. I believe what this person is talking about it the concepts of "memes" and the requirement of one to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. The requirement to eventually make a decision while still using critical thinking skills simply means that one must act as though whatever beliefs they have are fact at the moment. Keeping an open mind allows these beliefs and thus the "facts" one operates with the assumption of, to change. None of this is incompatible. It is, like in point one, the use of logic to state that where there is uncertainty, practical concerns must still be met. As to the idea of "memes;" essentially the theory is that ideas spread or die out just as life does. You absorb ideas from your surroundings and only occasionally produce new ones. The ideas you absorb, and indeed any you produce, are only likely to survive if they encourage their own survival, usually to the extinction of opposition. This does not mean that anyone's beliefs should require them to kill dissenters. Instead, what is suggested is that the only way you are likely to believe in something, say a particular system of values, is if part of the system is a belief that it should be preserved and that it is superior to others. A hyperbolic example of this would be Dave Chappelle's keeping it real skits.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example)
People do things (some good!) in the name of God, not many do so for the spaghetti monster. So, while the tree might not be real, the fruit is delicious.
People who argue about the provability of God, like that was somehow the goal of religion, are missing the point.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example)
People do things (some good!) in the name of God, not many do so for the spaghetti monster. So, while the tree might not be real, the fruit is delicious.
People who argue about the provability of God, like that was somehow the goal of religion, are missing the point.
Please don't try to say Christianity has been a positive influence for humanity.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
er what?
Obnoxious people are obnoxious.
Atheists just don't believe in god.
Now the reason atheists and religious people clash is blame on both and honestly if religion held no sway other than a belief system I wouldn't care.
Unfortunately some laws that I don't quite agree with come to fruition only because of religion existing...some scientific research is either halted aggressively or loses funding.
If religious agenda were completely innocent and didn't affect my life at all I wouldn't care about it. Unfortunately neither of those is true.
From a purely neutral standpoint the concept of God is actually ridiculous. There is however a certain attachment to the idea of God and the whole live your life morally thing but only when you want to line that bugs me.
In short, I don't care what you believe as long as you keep it away from me.
I watched some of QualiaSoup's videos, and I definitely understand the video about being open-minded. Matter of fact, I've understood this for years, but have always failed to convince others in that matter, possibly because the way that I worded it confused people.
I think about philosophy and such every single day. It's good to know that there are others in this world that think the way I think. The hard part is getting my points across. It's a skill, just like anything else. The more I practice, the better I get.
By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence.
One scientific reason? Because that's the basis of scientific reason
But anyway, there's no "real" reason to prescribe to scientism (and I don't think I said anything about empirical evidence specifically), the only problems arise when you're trying to convince someone else of your views for whatever reason.
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote: why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
Isn't this a cop-out? It's too easy to just keep asking people to justify their justification. It's not clever, it's counter-productive. Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable. If everybody had your attitude, nobody would get anywhere. Your mother would still be justifying to you why you need to eat your vegetables even though the answer is mind-blowingly clear.
BruceLee6783 United States. May 03 2010 14:29. Posts 57 PM Profile Quote #
By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
It's somewhat subtle, but in essence very simple. You're presented with 3 doors. Behind 1 is a ton of money. Behind the other 2 is some gag prize. You're allowed to choose 1 of the doors and get whatever is behind it. Obviously, you would prefer the money, but with no evidence on which to base your decision, you might as well pick a door at random.
You choose a door, and there is a 1/3 chance that this door is the good one, but a 2/3 chance that it isn't. This 2/3 chance corresponds to the 2 other doors, each of which have a 1/3 chance of being the good one. Now the host shows you the gag prize that is behind one of the doors which you didn't pick. You are now given another choice: stay with the door you originally picked or switch to the remaining 3rd door. This is where the subtlety comes in. Most people default to their original logic and say "well, I still have no evidence on which to base the decision, so either door is equally likely, so I'll just stick with my first choice."
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect. You have to think about it as the door you first picked had a 1/3 chance of being correct, while the collection of the other 2 doors had the remaining 2/3. After a door you didn't pick is revealed to not have the money, the final door inherits the total 2/3 chance. Thus, you are twice as likely to get the money if you switch doors when given the second choice.
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote: why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.
I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.
tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.
Excuse my feeble mind but I'm quite sure what you quoted fits not into the definition tautological. Care to explain your assertion?
On May 03 2010 15:40 Lixler wrote: Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.
I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.
so Lixler am i to understand that you hold beliefs based on assumptions, rather than conclusions drawn from evidence? your post on page 8 now requires emendation.
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.
tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.
Excuse my feeble mind but I'm quite sure what you quoted fits not into the definition tautological. Care to explain your assertion?
not particularly.
but i'll admit i did find your argument from eating-your-vegetables fairly creative.
On May 03 2010 15:40 Lixler wrote: Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.
I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.
so Lixler am i to understand that you hold beliefs based on assumptions, rather than conclusions drawn from evidence? your post on page 8 now requires emendation.
You aren't to understand that, no. I was giving "truth is positive" as an assumption that I wouldn't need to explain.
Either way, you can follow this line of logic forever and keep asking "What evidence is there for that statement?", but what do you aim to prove? That some assumptions must be made?
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote: why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
lulz you might as well ask people why they only buy cars that work
some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
Assumptions are needed where evidence is incomplete but nonetheless based on the evidence that does exist. You devalue evidence whilst preaching the necessity of assumption. Nobody denies the necessity of assumption. We make assumptions to get by in everyday life. In addition, nobody claims their beliefs exist in some special dimension. They claim their beliefs exist in a dimension where evidence exists, and is useful to exploit.
By all means if you want to walk across the road completely ignoring the sensory evidence your eyes and ears are being bombarded with, going on pure faith that you will not be hit, please do so. When you're half way through the air from being hit by a car, ask yourself again why we should not use evidence to draw beliefs.
Tinman I'll give you an answer in the interest of debate, one should not belief without evidence as it is detrimental to the progression of mankind, also belief without evidence can be seen as having great influence in the violence, oppression and intolerance that we observe in the world on an every day basis.
Belief with evidence holds itself in contrast to this, now you have left a huge ammount of room for interpretation of "evidence" and even "belief" so I will interpret the former as "an accepted scientific proof for which there is numerous evidence supporting" and the latter "A position you hold where you have an understanding of something and consider it to be true"
So those are two reasons. I could add some more, such as philisophical point that to talk or consider anything outside of the world of sense, as Kant has argued, is essentially meaningless and much belief without evidence rests of the idea that such considerations are meaningful. Or even that the position there is no more value in belief with evidence than without, however, you cannot have your cake and eat it, or religious people ought not engage in scientific discussion if they cannot leave their belief without evidence at the door (and perhaps vice versa for scientists wishing to discuss religion).
some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
On May 03 2010 14:29 BruceLee6783 wrote: I watched some of QualiaSoup's videos, and I definitely understand the video about being open-minded. Matter of fact, I've understood this for years, but have always failed to convince others in that matter, possibly because the way that I worded it confused people.
I think about philosophy and such every single day. It's good to know that there are others in this world that think the way I think. The hard part is getting my points across. It's a skill, just like anything else. The more I practice, the better I get.
By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
Three doors. You get to pick either one of the three doors (by picking and not switching), or two of the three doors (by picking and switching). Two-thirds of the time, the object will be behind one of those two doors rather than the one you picked.
What confuses people is they don't realize what their initial choice of a door actually means. It's not, "I want the prize behind this door". Rather, it's, "You can't open this door. You have to open one of the others." That matters. You protect Door A from the game master. If Door A has the prize, the GM gets to pick his door to open at random... but if you picked a door without the prize, the game master doesn't get a choice --> his action isn't random --> his action tells you where the prize is. 1/3 of the time, Door A has the prize so his action is random... but 2/3 of the time, Door B or Door C has the prize, so his action tells you which one. Thus you play the odds and say that his action told you where the prize is, and you win 2/3 of the time.
There aren't even three doors - not really. There are two doors, one of which passed a trial by fire (a chance of elimination if it doesn't contain the prize) and one which did not pass any such trial. Clearly the one that passed the trial is more likely to contain the prize than the one you protected.
The trouble is Lixler "should" "good" and "false" are tricky words. Either you are coming from the understanding that there notions of good, the idea of truth and falsity and the resulting "should" are objective. However good luck trying to prove that, and if you are left with subjectivity there is little argument to be had. You are left with "if you hold that belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial than belief without evidence then belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial"
On May 03 2010 15:54 Lixler wrote: I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
so let me get this straight...
you make a "logical system" based on arbitrary assumptions for which no evidence can be offered.
then you demand that worldviews adhere to your logical system.
i dunno sounds a little like proselytization to me.
On May 03 2010 15:54 Lixler wrote: I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
so let me get this straight...
you make a "logical system" based on arbitrary assumptions for which no evidence can be offered.
then you demand that worldviews adhere to your logical system.
i dunno sounds a little like proselytization to me.
I'm not demanding that anyone else's worldviews adhere to my logical system, only that my worldviews adhere to it. If anyone should want me to accept their worldview, then obviously they would have to demonstrate to me in some way that it is superior in some way to mine.
If I just accepted their worldview based on nothing, my "beliefs" would be fairly meaningless, the same with any statement I made.
And I sort of have a "practical" fallback to requiring evidence, otherwise I would obviously agree that anything is arbitrary. But since the OP is, to some extent, concerned with real-life interaction, I can just draw anything back to that.
On May 03 2010 16:05 XeliN wrote: The trouble is Lixler "should" "good" and "false" are tricky words. Either you are coming from the understanding that there notions of good, the idea of truth and falsity and the resulting "should" are objective. However good luck trying to prove that, and if you are left with subjectivity there is little argument to be had. You are left with "if you hold that belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial than belief without evidence then belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial"
I should hope I wasn't trying to say truth and falsity were objectively good and bad, only that any kind of "worldview" that seeks truth should obviously accept this.
The tautology you've presented is kind of a more fundamental problem than just this, I think. Any kind of logical conclusion you make from something can be reduced to a repetition of the premises.
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.
If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.
I do philosophy media, although "do" is slightly strong. I'm lazy as fuck and hardly go to lectures//read around the subject (although I've started reading Thus Said Zarathustra, I intend it to be the first philosophy book I will have read this year, if you don't count the God Delusion which you shouldn't ^^)
On May 03 2010 16:11 Lixler wrote: I'm not demanding that anyone else's worldviews adhere to my logical system, only that my worldviews adhere to it. If anyone should want me to accept their worldview, then obviously they would have to demonstrate to me in some way that it is superior in some way to mine.
i wish that you had just said
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total if they want me to accept their worldview. If they want me to accept their worldview they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
from the get-go. it would have saved me some time because i have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting you to accept a worldview.
And you are right Lixlel, but tinman can still maintain or even argue more strongly that if belief with evidence at its roots rests and is inextricably linked to value judgements that are subjective then it is no better or worse than belief without evidence, or substitute "science" is no better than "faith" e.t.c
On May 03 2010 15:54 XeliN wrote: Tinman I'll give you an answer in the interest of debate, one should not belief without evidence as it is detrimental to the progression of mankind, also belief without evidence can be seen as having great influence in the violence, oppression and intolerance that we observe in the world on an every day basis.
sorry XeliN i missed that you had said this.
but you could probably guess what i have to say. i don't know why being detrimental to the progress of mankind (whatever that means) is a bad thing. i also kind of enjoy violence, oppression, and intolerance so i am willing to contribute to their continued flowering by whatever means is closest at hand.
the more fundamental problem though is providing evidence for the belief that one should not do something that hinders "the progression of mankind."
Well then tinman the argument would run that there is no inherent value that makes belief with evidence superior to belief without evidence, however, if certain assumptions and understandings are granted such as "The search for truth is a valuable aim" "Evidence is a neccesary part of discerning truth" "the progression of manking, and minimising of suffering is a worthwhile pursuit" e.t.c then belief with evidence is very clearly greater.
As the vast majority of manking would agree to holding these assumptions or similar notions then it is very easy to argue why belief with evidence is better.
And you seem to be trying to force people into the position of arguing objectively whilst maintaining for yourself the luxury of subjectivity.
Actually I'll edit, fine then if you do not value objectivity then why are you not willing to concede to an argument for the value of belief with evidence based on subjective values?
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.
If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.
There is a one-third chance that the prize is behind the door you picked (Door 1), and a 100% chance that one of Door 2 and Door 3 is empty.
You're suggesting that, if the host tells you which one of Door 2 and Door 3 is empty (or, if they're both empty, tells you one of them that's empty), the chance will somehow increase that Door 1 contains the prize. Nope. That could only be true if the chance that the prize is behind Door 1 depends on which of Door 2 and Door 3 the host opens.
You pick the car. The host eliminates one of the two remaining doors (doesn't matter since they both have goats). If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: (2/3 chance)
You pick a goat. The host eliminates the other goat, leaving the car in the door you can switch to. If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
Note that this depends on the host knowing where the car is and never eliminating it on accident or on purpose. If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way (proof left to interested reader)
On May 03 2010 16:14 BruceLee6783 wrote: Show nested quote + Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.
If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.
Severedevil pretty much addresses this, but I can see why it would seem strange. Honestly though, just try it. Take like 3 pieces of paper or some such and write prize on the back of one of them and do this with a friend. Switch is the correct choice twice as often as not.
Critical thinking and skepticism are not inherently 'good' as there is no inherent 'good'. They are tools to accrue consistent information, which in turns allows us to certain things (walk, talk, irrigate crops, visit the moon, build computers). If we want to do those things, we should accrue consistent information -->the scientific method.
If we want to be hypocritical little ratdicks, we should use the scientific method to accrue information about some things (and accept other folks' information garnered through the scientific method) while impugning the scientific method and rejecting any attempts to apply it to our fetishes.
How about people try not to antagonize each other, but try to put in a lot of effort to formulate their thoughts in a manner where others can agree with, or disagree with purely on personal preference, rather than having this hunt for who is right?
Besides that, the original videos are mainly made for the demonstration of critical thinking, not for religion bashing. (Although I agree with others that it is alienating the religious crowd with its examples. It could also give examples that would alienate the atheistic crowd)
Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.
If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.
Ok, let me explain you in this way.
You have 100 doors. 1 has the money the rest is garbage. Now you choose 1 door randomly and the host opens other 98 doors which is garbage. Now when you did your first pick your chance to find money was 1/100 which is not good. When host removes 98 garbage doors you has to change your choice to remaining door because its more likely you couldn't find the right door in your first pick. Same thing goes for 3 doors selection too
On May 03 2010 16:11 Lixler wrote: I'm not demanding that anyone else's worldviews adhere to my logical system, only that my worldviews adhere to it. If anyone should want me to accept their worldview, then obviously they would have to demonstrate to me in some way that it is superior in some way to mine.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total if they want me to accept their worldview. If they want me to accept their worldview they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
from the get-go. it would have saved me some time because i have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting you to accept a worldview.
On May 03 2010 16:20 XeliN wrote: And you are right Lixlel, but tinman can still maintain or even argue more strongly that if belief with evidence at its roots rests and is inextricably linked to value judgements that are subjective then it is no better or worse than belief without evidence, or substitute "science" is no better than "faith" e.t.c
Although I feel silly posting the exact same response, my point in all this is that you need to accept these assumptions to participate in any kind of rational debate and still expect to be able to convince the other person. I wouldn't dream of saying "truth" is better than, say "faith," in any other context.
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
As for Craig's arguments, if you believe that you can show all of them are weak, then you're either John Loftus, one of the brightest philosophers I've never heard of (and should organize a debate with Craig, he's getting old, after all!), or simply mistaken. I like organizing things according to trilemmas.
Lets be honest, when most non-theists go up against Craig, then end up babbling about something entirely unrelated to the debate.
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs.
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs.
Is this bashing ? I don't think so.
I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal.
Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc).
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs.
Is this bashing ? I don't think so.
I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal.
Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc).
Gnosis, I like your writing. I would like to add an idea. Call what is and what is not a fact based on the willingness to accept something as fact by all members of a discussion. For every discussion the relevant facts will differ. Those facts that are not accepted by every member of a discussion are not going to be of much use anyway until in some way everyone can become convinced of their truth.
On May 03 2010 23:30 Badjas wrote: Gnosis, I like your writing. I would like to add an idea. Call what is and what is not a fact based on the willingness to accept something as fact by all members of a discussion. For every discussion the relevant facts will differ. Those facts that are not accepted by every member of a discussion are not going to be of much use anyway until in some way everyone can become convinced of their truth.
Well, it's much like the idea of a "default position," it's going to differ depending on the context you find yourself in. The same with facts, or I think more properly, the interpretation of facts. It seems to me that this is the reason why different conclusions share similar facts. One might argue against god on the basis of evil (i.e. evil, suffering and a good god are incompatible) , while another will argue for god on the basis of evil (i.e. to call something truly evil, and truly good, requires an objective standard that would not exist without a god). Hence why the majority of arguments are interpretations of facts, not simply the straight presentations of facts.
But yes, you make a good point (if I understand you correctly). What is and is not a "fact" is going to differ to different people. It's not enough to only say "here are the facts".
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
I don't understand why you're restricting yourself to scientific evidence. Something that is unknown to science is not necessarily "unknown," it could be known to some other field of (truth) inquiry--philosophy, metaphysics, theology, etc. This comes back to what I said above, things which have a multiplicity of evidence are more certain than things which don't, but the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of that thing (even if it is a "good" indication). I also think you make an error in equating "observable evidence" with scientific evidence. For instance, what do you mean by observable? Science is very good at explaining physical processes, and it is horrible at explaining purpose and intention (especially among human agents), but I would say that this outside of science's realm of inquiry, and more properly suited for some other field of study (i.e. metaphysics). To me this isn't "filling the gap" with fiction, unless there is some proposition being made for no good reason (spaghetti monsters). More normally, this "filling the gap," if that's what you want to call it, is done so on the basis of perceived evidences. Consider that a person might not be justified by evidence in positing a god, but they may do so regardless. If in fact god exists, then they would not have posited a fiction, regardless of our thinking so.
Now, I never said that the (second) video made the claim that it's impossible for there to be a god. The video is wrong, however, is dismissing all arguments in favor of their being god. The cube example, for instance, is largely irrelevant. Of course it's a lot easier to give a list of what god is not, but that has absolutely no relation to what god is, if god exists (and that is the question--what is god? not what is god not?). And while the video does not say its wrong to make suppositions about god, the video certainly isn't kind towards such people, who should keep their faith "private" (what if their faith isn't a private faith?).
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
What the fuck, how can you be offended just because someone claims that your God does not exist .... and even if he says that there is just no evidence and he doesn`t know you are still offended, holy crap
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs.
Is this bashing ? I don't think so.
I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal.
Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc).
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say that people can't be converted, just that people who are either atheist or have a personal relationship with God won't be converted by logic.
Christians who are only Christians because they were raised that way can be converted by logical arguments, but I was specifically thinking of only the two above groups when I wrote the previous post.
And I know someone is going to highlight the personal relationship thing and call that out for being ridiculous, so let me just say that it's not something I have and I'm not totally convinced either. But I've seen enough people completely turn their lives around and become completely different (better) people because of that. If it's not God, there's a really interesting psychological answer for it somewhere because there's definitely something there. But that's not my point.
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
Aren't you just defining "exact truth" in a convenient way such that only scientific evidence can determine what is "exact truth" and what is assumption? On what basis?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
First of all I want to say that I agree with almost everything you've said here, which is nice As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs.
Is this bashing ? I don't think so.
I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal.
Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc).
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say that people can't be converted, just that people who are either atheist or have a personal relationship with God won't be converted by logic.
Christians who are only Christians because they were raised that way can be converted by logical arguments, but I was specifically thinking of only the two above groups when I wrote the previous post.
And I know someone is going to highlight the personal relationship thing and call that out for being ridiculous, so let me just say that it's not something I have and I'm not totally convinced either. But I've seen enough people completely turn their lives around and become completely different (better) people because of that. If it's not God, there's a really interesting psychological answer for it somewhere because there's definitely something there. But that's not my point.
I think that if someone gets "better" with faith and it is enough for them, they should keep doing it. But it is not enough for me. Things doesn't get real because you believe them or make you feel better. Things might be real or be real in different way or may not be real. Furthermore illusions can make life seem better or make it feel "easier" to handle things. Even this part of faith doesn't make it real.
It would be nicer of him if he looked at it both-ways. Theists wanting atheists to belive, but also the sillyness in atheists wanting theists to not belive But i do agree that being critical aswell as open-minded is a good thing to promote. It's also very important to remember being tolerant and accepting being wrong (wich is open-mindedness). Although the funniest arguments i had with my friend are those when they refuse to look evidence in the eye ^__^
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
First of all I want to say that I agree with almost everything you've said here, which is nice As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
I use history of science and other branches as evidence. But let me point out something. Something may be real but we haven't supported it with scientific evidence yet. It just means the proposition is real but we don't know it. Thats why there is no need to acknowledge it as "truth" yet. Which means you can believe it to be real. If those questions have had answered there would be no need for faith. Thats why faith always has a use over people unless you decide to call unknown as unknown. I hope i made my point.
On May 04 2010 00:35 Aelfric wrote: I think that if someone gets "better" with faith and it is enough for them, they should keep doing it. But it is not enough for me. Things doesn't get real because you believe them or make you feel better. Things might be real or be real in different way or may not be real. Furthermore illusions can make life seem better or make it feel "easier" to handle things. Even this part of faith doesn't make it real.
Let me introduce placebo effects into the discussion. People believe they have a positive effect and therefor they have a positive effect. Scientific evidence points out that they have no effect, when viewed outside of the context of the human mind (just the standard bodily functions not affected by 'consciousness' ways that is the placebo effect). When the placebo effect is taken into account in the scientific study, placebo medicine can be factually verified to be effective. One could perform this same reasoning for the belief in deities (or a single deity). The positive effect of such belief might be difficult to establish as it is difficult to measure a person's belief with the almighty objective 'sensor'. That is no proof that a deity exists nor that one does not exist. If, however, a person defines a certain God to be real in the sense that it makes them feel better in certain circumstances, I have a hard time to go against that (as a concept at least, not in any physically-real way). (Darn, internet at home is broken until friday, I wish I could keep a closer eye on this discussion as it develops)
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
As for Craig's arguments, if you believe that you can show all of them are weak, then you're either John Loftus, one of the brightest philosophers I've never heard of (and should organize a debate with Craig, he's getting old, after all!), or simply mistaken. I like organizing things according to trilemmas.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside. You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Science is very good at explaining physical processes, and it is horrible at explaining purpose and intention (especially among human agents)
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
First of all I want to say that I agree with almost everything you've said here, which is nice As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
I use history of science and other branches as evidence. But let me point out something. Something may be real but we haven't supported it with scientific evidence yet. It just means the proposition is real but we don't know it. Thats why there is no need to acknowledge it as "truth" yet. Which means you can believe it to be real. If those questions have had answered there would be no need for faith. Thats why faith always has a use over people unless you decide to call unknown as unknown. I hope i made my point.
I understand what you're saying, however, the history of science "and other branches" is not itself scientific evidence, you're making a philosophical appeal, not a scientific one. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, however, you appear to be making the same sort of claims that the Logical Positivists of a few decades ago made. There are a number of reasons this philosophy, or way of doing science, went out of "style," and one of them was because the question that I'm asking you can be afforded no answer.
I do think that if something is truth, it should be acknowledge as truth even in lieu of scientific evidence, but that's a small point and I don't really wish to focus on it. How this relates to faith? That depends. As I said in a previous post, how we define "faith" is greatly dependent on which side of the Enlightenment we were born on. Faith in the classical sense is based in and on evidences towards a conclusion (especially in the Christian world, among classical and medieval philosophers. Case in point the Apostle Paul, who was constantly appealing to the resurrection). Faith in the "modern" sense is more properly called "blind faith," or what I prefer to call it, "delusional (belief)".
I understand the point you are making, I'm not quite sure you understand me.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote: [quote]
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote: [quote]
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
Please note: I haven't watched all the videos, only the first one, and a bit of the second. neither have I taken the time to read the entire thread, only a few excerpts. I just will like to point out what I see on the issue.
His basic points are correct. Reason has a good place in this world, and I have nothing against it. However, he then seems to turn on his heel, and instantly start saying that religious believers are stupid and use no reason. I believe he is rather missing the point.
Yes, reason is useful, but it is not always applicable. Take, for example, the death of Abraham Lincoln. While we have numerous accounts of it's happening, there is no scientific/reasonable evidence that we can use to prove it. The event has no testability or repeatability, and we will never be able to prove that it did or didn't happening.
Personally, I don't doubt that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, but I'm using this as an example to show the shortfalls of science or critical thinking. It can only be used to test certain things, and on all other things we need at least a small amount of "faith."
It's the same with religion and atheism, or evolution and divine creation. While certain viewpoints may have more justifiability than others, they are simply beyond the realm of complete critical thinking. Whether someone believes in a deity or not, they need faith.
I hope I have made myself understandable without commiting any critical flaws
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
No it doesn't. That's what these "puzzles" are all about. We tend to give two alternatives an equal probability, but that's a fallacy. You misunderstood the last part of jalstar's post. What he wanted to say was. If the host opened a door randomly, then switching or staying would be the same. But since the host opens a door systematically, i.e. he always opens a "losing" door, you can take advantage of this. You can also put it like this: If you always switch, your "game" becomes essentially "not finding" the car with your first guess. If you manage that, then the host will open the other losing door and by switching you will inevetibly find the car. Since "not finding the car" with your first pick is easier (2 out of 3), switching is beneficial.
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
Consider instead 100 doors. If you choose one and the host eliminates the rest except one, do you still think it's 50/50? There are two doors, not 100 right?
I found a really nice video titled "conspiracy theorists" on youtube once. Sadly, it's only in german but maybe some people speak german here ^^ Title: Why are you a conspiracy theorist?
This guy takes people who do not believe in moon landing as an example for this. He says that the opposite of to know is not "not knowing" but to believe and that, especially in case of moon landing, many conspiracy theorists show patterns that are rather typical for religion than for science. "Religiously believed collides often with the normative power of facts, because the believed claim was made without knowing the state of facts. If the contradiction becomes obvious, apparent and verifiable, then the believed will not be revised but shielded from reality with a protective claim in which fact arguments should fizzle out, as proven very formidable in case of "intelligent design"." (Gosh these are some sentences that contain mainy words without direct equivalents in english x_x)
"If I want to know what other people know, I have to learn it. If I want to believe what other people believe, I only have to believe it. This only requires willingness but few work and setbacks are excluded, because believes are no subject to principles of general falsifiability. Scientific statements are subject to the requirement that they have to be verifiable, with, of couse, the implication that if the verification is negative, the statement will be taken back as wrong and this result forces the creator of the statement back to desk or to the lab to rethink. Science is no replacement for religion. Religio means "reconnect". The "Sci" in "Science" is the same like in scissors, "der schere" (the scissors ), something will be seperated. "Scheitern" (to fail) and gescheit (clever) have the same origin, here something gets seperated, too. Namely, in failing the plan or purpose from reality, that is clearly perceptible and it's possible to draw consequences from it. If one is clever, he can seperate cause and effect in analysis of what happened and try the same again based on the realized, but respectiveley different. For this, one have to take completely note of content of the previous failure, only this way one can also get more clever. This is very troublesome and only brings one to where one is then, everything that one wants to know further than this has to be acquired the exact same way and accepted that one will fail over and over again doing so to seperate right from wrong. So you really have to like this." [...] "Nature is like it is and not like we would like it to be, so we have to revise claims that proved wrong." [...] "How easy is it instead to remove the bearer of bad news like "you were mistaken" from the dialogue as a servant of evil powers."
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like:
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Why would a religious person 'have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things'? Just because a person believes that some sort of higher being created everything means he has to believe every other possible belief that cannot be neither proven nor unproven? No.
They do if they want to avoid hypocrisy. Cherrypicking beliefs of equal validity and evidence is inherently illogical.
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
Bruce, are you trolling?
The Monty Hall problem is solved and proven mathematically. You can verify that result experimentally, in case you think that mathematical proof doesn't apply to the real world. It is an objective fact that by switching, you win 2/3 of the time, and by not switching, you win 1/3 of the time. You've already received at least a half dozen correct explanations. You are not correct, and you only hinder yourself by attempting to defend your prejudices.
I will give you an analogous situation. Alice, Bob, and Carol want to be employed by you. You pick Alice, and she leaves the room. Bob and Carol compete in a test, and Carol is found to be a superior potential employee than Bob. Given that information, would you hire Alice, or would you switch to Carol? Do you have equally good reason to believe Alice would be the best worker as you do to believe Carol would be the best worker?
On May 04 2010 03:59 tinman wrote: did you guys know that there is an individual in this very thread who credits our ability to walk to critical thinking? i am not making this shit up.
How did you learn to walk? Did you observe other people walking, and attempt through trial and error to copy the motion? Did you experiment with various forms of body positioning and locomotion (not to mention general muscle firing) until you could replicate it?
From your reaction, I must facetiously conclude that you do not know how to walk, and that your parents in fact hold you up and pump your legs to simulate walking, as you apparently never engaged in observation, thought, or experimentation on the subject of walking.
On May 04 2010 04:02 tinman wrote: hey. that employee example was actually pretty good.
and here i was thinking you were a raging fucktard.
no dude i am totally down with liking people who despise me.
but man one second you're telling me that critical thinking taught me how to walk. the next minute you're going to be telling me critical thinking died for my sins.
walking is a spinal reflex. you don't even need a brain to do it. look it up. have you critically thought for a second that since critical thinking is unique to our species but walking isn't that maybe there's a simpler explanation?
On May 04 2010 04:11 tinman wrote: walking is a spinal reflex. you don't even need a brain to do it. look it up. have you critically thought for a second that since critical thinking is unique to our species but walking isn't that maybe there's a simpler explanation?
Have you critically thought for a second that perhaps critical thinking is not unique to our species?
tinman United States. May 04 2010 04:14. Posts 213 PM Profile Blog Quote # my fucking dog learns from observation and trial & error. i don't expect him to be weighing in on our debate any time soon though.
Under the definition of critical thinking that you all seem to be using, your dog likely does use critical thinking. Most people here seem to be using critical thinking to mean basing their actions on repeated observation of identical or at least similar scenarios. This is a useful definition, and under it animals do engage in critical thinking as proven by Pavlovian conditioning. After observing that a specific stimulus is followed by some specific action, they come to expect that said action will always follow said stimulus.
If you think Pavlov's dogs are a bad example, you can find countless similar ones in humans. You are speaking as though critical thinking and sentience were the same thing.
person a: "critical thinking is responsible for everything good in human existence like agriculture and computers and... umm... walking!"
person b: "man you really think any developmental psychologist would be caught dead in a field with that notion that infants critically think they're way into bipedal locomotion?"
person a: "OF COURSE! how else would we learn to walk except by observation, trial & error, and long periods of rigorous introspection about our past failures!"
person b: "you know animals walk, right?"
person a: "well maybe ANIMALS can think critically too!"
just in case you are confused about how you got to where you are in this argument. there's the etiology. now i'm going to go youtube a video of baby chickens and watch them reason their way into walking within the first 48 hours of their existence.
tinman United States. May 04 2010 04:14. Posts 213 PM Profile Blog Quote # my fucking dog learns from observation and trial & error. i don't expect him to be weighing in on our debate any time soon though.
Under the definition of critical thinking that you all seem to be using, your dog likely does use critical thinking. Most people here seem to be using critical thinking to mean basing their actions on repeated observation of identical or at least similar scenarios. This is a useful definition, and under it animals do engage in critical thinking as proven by Pavlovian conditioning. After observing that a specific stimulus is followed by some specific action, they come to expect that said action will always follow said stimulus.
If you think Pavlov's dogs are a bad example, you can find countless similar ones in humans. You are speaking as though critical thinking and sentience were the same thing.
oh my fucking god you guys are fucking killing me.
did you watch the goddamn motherfucking videos? you find me a dog that "wants to be better at thinking" and works toward that end by "seeking out and being guided by knowledge and evidence that fits with reality even if it refutes his cherished doggy beliefs."
of course you can define critical thinking however you want to. congratulations on being the first to discover that definitions of words are not sewn inextricably into the fabric of the universe.
Posted to your first response, which was apparently not towards me.
I'm just trying to respond to the definition of critical thinking that most people in this thread seem to be using based on their posts. If you define critical thinking in terms of motives of improving your thinking skills or some such, then animals could be said not to think critically as they are unlikely to think about thinking.
my definition of critical thinking is manipulating the laws of gravitation and time via human sacrifice and the careful arrangement of precious stones.
I'm not trying to claim that critical thinking is responsible for everything good or that nothing can be worth while if doesn't stem from critical thinking.
my definition of critical thinking is the proliferation of black holes in the vacuum of space following the mutual extinction via intergalactic nuclear war of two alien races we'll now never discover.
Are we restricting critical thinking to conscious evaluation of modes of thought? In that case, learning to walk would not be an application of critical thinking. It is, however, a direct application of the scientific method.
The ability to walk and the nature of critical thinking and what it results from are not inextricably linked. Thank god I can go on walks again, my mind blissfully free.
Lol tinman unironically trying to say science\critical thought etc is not the best method available. Actually, what the fuck IS he arguing over anyway? Please continue, this is entertaining.
On May 04 2010 05:36 Romantic wrote: Lol tinman unironically trying to say science\critical thought etc is not the best method available. Actually, what the fuck IS he arguing over anyway? Please continue, this is entertaining.
I lost him a couple of pages back myself, granted I'm not trying to hard to follow but yea.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote: [quote]
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote: [quote]
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. Essentially you're saying that since we have not observed what premise (1) and (2) assert, we're unjustified in asserting anything. Further, that premise (2) is controversial enough that any such appeal is downright "frowned" upon. Or in other words, we don't know either way, so we shouldn't say either way. Is that correct?
Being a determinist I believe that both a-priori philosophies and empiricist methodologies are just abstractions from the way neurons tend to hierarchically connect.
mandatory semi-related youtube video from a youtube minor
Inference works by creating hierarchies from many correlating sensory data from lower neurons to higher ones the video doesn't say this, but, I believe deduction works by creating hierarchies from... perhaps already high neurons to even higher. therefore, deduction is superior obv.
edit: to make it clear, Whether you believe "critical thinking" is bad, works, doesn't work, doesn't damn matter. Your brain is wired in such a way that you are always going to be making predictions based on available sensory data. So the debate seems a little silly to me now actually.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote: [quote]
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote: [quote]
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion. [quote]
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote: [quote]
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote: [quote] This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
As I was going to say in my other response, but didn't... I guess that's the reason we're working within a philosophical framework
You have to think about it as the door you first picked had a 1/3 chance of being correct, while the collection of the other 2 doors had the remaining 2/3. After a door you didn't pick is revealed to not have the money, the final door inherits the total 2/3 chance. Thus, you are twice as likely to get the money if you switch doors when given the second choice.
After reading this section of your post over and over, I FINALLY GET IT. Wow...now it all makes sense to me. I was beginning to think that there was a 50% chance of TL being nuts, and a 50% chance of me needing to belong in an asylum. Damn I hate being wrong.
As a defense mechanism employed to protect my ego, I will now say that the rest of the explanations people gave me were insufficient to promote my understanding of the matter.
Perhaps people's explanations are crap....66% of the time?
Sorry dude, I sincerely was not trolling. It just took me a long time to finally understand it. I appreciated your efforts to help me, though.
Holy shit, this is something that is fucking hard to explain to other people. After it finally "clicked" in my brain, I attempted to explain it to family members and co-workers. Not a great success...
On May 03 2010 15:03 tinman wrote:give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence.
You can believe whatever you like. Science just helps quantify how much you should rely on those beliefs being true.
On May 03 2010 15:03 tinman wrote: give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence.
On May 03 2010 15:48 tinman wrote:some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
This is not true. If the expectations engendered by the model of reality you hold are reliably met, then you know two things: that reality is coherent (it obeys logical principles) and that your model conforms with it to some degree. This information is in itself evidence that our beliefs should be evidence-based.
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.
If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.
Here's a way of thinking about it that helped me get it right in my head:
Imagine there are a million doors, and still only one prize. You pick a door at random, and then the host opens all but one of the other doors (999,998 of them) to show 'no prize'. So the prize is either behind the door you picked at random OR the door the host left closed. Which is more likely? Is it really a 50/50 chance that you picked the right door to begin with?
On May 04 2010 03:59 tinman wrote: did you guys know that there is an individual in this very thread who credits our ability to walk to critical thinking? i am not making this shit up.
Ah, someone did read my post; good. Hello
If you go back and take a second look, however, you'll find I don't credit our ability to walk to critical thinking. If I gave that impression, it was not intentional and I apologise.
Learning to walk - to coordinate our muscles and nerves and all the rest of it - is a process of trial and error: trying things and distinguishing what works (what produces the expected/desired result) from what doesn't. If our minds didn't make that distinction, if they didn't allow evidence to shape their model of reality, we could not learn. You've asked why we should confine ourselves to evidence-based beliefs: perhaps you should think about how well you would be able to walk right now if your subconscious had just picked a random set of muscle movements and refused to refine them in the light of feedback from reality
Trial and error is not critical thinking, though. Critical thinking is taking a step back to assess or quantify how well you know an existing or proposed mental model conforms with reality. Say someone takes a homeopathic remedy and a few days later they feel better. Instinctive trial and error reasoning tells them the remedy worked: do the same thing again next time. Critical thinking exposes the inadequacy of that single data point. More generally it highlights unsupported beliefs so they can be properly tested.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
[quote]
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
[quote]
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
As I was going to say in my other response, but didn't... I guess that's the reason we're working within a philosophical framework
Sob3k summed it up perfectly imo. My main gripe with Kalam and WLC is that he presents it as a "proof" using somewhat intuitive concepts for more than a decade now and quotes "science" whenever he sees fit to further his point. Instead it would be just a matter of intellectual honesty to say that pretty much nothing we can observe in the real world can be applied to the special circumstances of a "beginning of everything", so while we might speculate, we are in no position to prove anything by now and we simply don't know (yet). What seems probable though, is that linear concepts which require time and space to exist in the first place, like cause and effect, will not be helpful or at the very least lose their meaning.
give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence.
It's logical.
No, its an assumption. And theres nothing particularly wrong with making that assumption as long as you're willing to admit its an assumption. But if you can't recognize it as an assumption you fail at critical thinking.
Evidence-based reasoning is good and proper for science. While I can't prove that to be true, I do find it useful.
Evidence-based reasoning is less useful in areas where the evidence is vague or just non-existent. So while you feel justified in demanding evidence-based reasoning, don't feel compelled to only use a hammer just because its good at the nail thing.
The fact is that the scientific method is the best thing we have for discerning fact from fiction. If I'm going to be hitting nails I'd rather have a hammer than a toothbrush.
Thank you Cloud, I have learned a new word! tbh the 3 major arguments for belief in a creator, the Cosmological, Teleological and Ontological, have been criticised so damningly, especially by Kant, that they can no longor hold much merit.
This thread needs more debate about different philosophies of language and their connection with the idea of truth. I can only recommend Roy Harris's "the linguistics of history" from 2004. It really is a great book. Anyways to start the debate, a fundamental principle in the modern study of language is that words and signs have to inherent meaning, their meaning is always a product of the communicational context. This has influence on the idea of reading or determining the historical truth from written evidence.
On May 04 2010 20:18 gyth wrote: No, its an assumption. And theres nothing particularly wrong with making that assumption as long as you're willing to admit its an assumption. But if you can't recognize it as an assumption you fail at critical thinking.
It really isn't an assumption.
How about this: each of us bets our lives on something being true. I'll bet my life on something for which there is a lot of evidence, you bet yours on something for which there is none. The number of people who get on (and more importantly off) planes every day, versus the number of hopefuls willing to faceplant off a high building really speaks volumes
Evidence-based reasoning is less useful in areas where the evidence is vague or just non-existent.
What makes you think such 'areas' are in any sense real or worth worrying about? There is evidence for all kinds of weird and wonderful stuff in this universe; isn't that enough to be getting on with?
On May 04 2010 03:59 tinman wrote: did you guys know that there is an individual in this very thread who credits our ability to walk to critical thinking? i am not making this shit up.
Ah, someone did read my post; good. Hello
If you go back and take a second look, however, you'll find I don't credit our ability to walk to critical thinking. If I gave that impression, it was not intentional and I apologise.
Learning to walk - to coordinate our muscles and nerves and all the rest of it - is a process of trial and error: trying things and distinguishing what works (what produces the expected/desired result) from what doesn't. If our minds didn't make that distinction, if they didn't allow evidence to shape their model of reality, we could not learn. You've asked why we should confine ourselves to evidence-based beliefs: perhaps you should think about how well you would be able to walk right now if your subconscious had just picked a random set of muscle movements and refused to refine them in the light of feedback from reality
Trial and error is not critical thinking, though. Critical thinking is taking a step back to assess or quantify how well you know an existing or proposed mental model conforms with reality. Say someone takes a homeopathic remedy and a few days later they feel better. Instinctive trial and error reasoning tells them the remedy worked: do the same thing again next time. Critical thinking exposes the inadequacy of that single data point. More generally it highlights unsupported beliefs so they can be properly tested.
peeling i get the impression that you are a moron. now let me tell you why i get this impression.
obviously i was talking to severedevil and not to you. i say obviously because severedevil and i had our little lovers quarrel already AND because i my reply to his post comes before you ever entered the thread.
the fact that you take my post as EVIDENCE that i was talking to you makes me SKEPTICAL of your THINKING abilities critical or otherwise.
On May 04 2010 23:24 gyth wrote: Is murder wrong? What is the evidence?
Asking such an unspecified question does not prove anything (or at most that you don't have a clear concept of evidence). I could also ask "Is bread interesting?" or "Is bread wrong?" for that matter. You would need to specify what you mean by "wrong". If you mean "morally wrong" you would just need to look at the various value systems and morals humanity has come up with and then "yes" according to most documented moral systems, murder is considered wrong under most circumstances. Evidence can be readily provided.
If you are even more specific and swap "morally wrong" with "detrimental for a society" then you can even have a more interesting albeit more complex investigation. The answer is again "yes" and plenty of evidence can be provided for that, which is actually the reason why basically all civilizations had figured this out independently already thousands of years ago.
I am really curious to know, why you would think such a question could not be answered by evaluating observable evidence or which alternative technique you would consider to find out the truth. Prayer?
On May 04 2010 01:21 Severedevil wrote: [quote] Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
[quote]
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote: [quote]
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
As I was going to say in my other response, but didn't... I guess that's the reason we're working within a philosophical framework
Sob3k summed it up perfectly imo. My main gripe with Kalam and WLC is that he presents it as a "proof" using somewhat intuitive concepts for more than a decade now and quotes "science" whenever he sees fit to further his point. Instead it would be just a matter of intellectual honesty to say that pretty much nothing we can observe in the real world can be applied to the special circumstances of a "beginning of everything", so while we might speculate, we are in no position to prove anything by now and we simply don't know (yet). What seems probable though, is that linear concepts which require time and space to exist in the first place, like cause and effect, will not be helpful or at the very least lose their meaning.
I understand what you're saying I think I understand WLC differently than you do. You seem to be taking this "proof" (of the Kalam) as something absolute, or definitive. I take it only as what he believes to be the best explanation for the "evidence" that he's dealing with. That's how I view the difference between mathematics, and philosophy (or science, and philosophy). One has you restricted to "cold" facts, the other lets you take things a step further (which philosophy has always done). Now, Craig may be completely wrong and unjustified in all his views, but if I had to make the judgment personally, I would have to agree with his philosophical speculation (in as far as I understand entropy, beginnings, infinities, etc.) Otherwise, even for science I see a point where it ceases to follow the "scientific method" and becomes suspiciously similar to metaphysics.
On May 04 2010 23:24 gyth wrote: Is murder wrong? What is the evidence?
what an incredibly vague question
And a moral one, at that. Only to show that science isn't equipped to answer moral questions? You guys are missing the point, if your gripe is that the question is vague. And he's right to ask the question from a moral view point. I suspect this is a question of objectively wrong, rather than subjectively wrong. Even if we arrive at a conclusion because 'X' societies view it as wrong, we would still ask, is it really wrong, independent of our opinion? "Murder is generally bad for the development of civilization" is not the same as saying "murder is wrong".
On May 04 2010 23:59 tinman wrote: peeling i get the impression that you are a moron. now let me tell you why i get this impression.
obviously i was talking to severedevil and not to you. i say obviously because severedevil and i had our little lovers quarrel already AND because i my reply to his post comes before you ever entered the thread.
the fact that you take my post as EVIDENCE that i was talking to you makes me SKEPTICAL of your THINKING abilities critical or otherwise.
Hmm. Well, in post #138 I mentioned learning to move limbs etc. Then in post #201 Severedevil makes a similar point. I confess I missed that post - sorry. Then in post #244 - your first post since Severedevil's, you make this comment:
did you guys know that there is an individual in this very thread who credits our ability to walk to critical thinking? i am not making this shit up.
I thought this was in reference to me, because I wrongly thought I was the only person to mention the subject. If missing post #201 makes me a moron, then guilty as charged. But since you clearly also missed a post of mine (#138), I suppose I'm in good company
i assumed i was talking to someone who had read the TEAMLIQUID COMMANDMENTS and who did not post in TWO DIFFERENT USERNAMES that he had made LESS THAN THREE WEEKS APART.
but no i did not read 138. to the best of my knowledge no one did. i just tried to read it since you linked to it and only narrowly avoided being bored to death.
On May 05 2010 00:04 Gnosis wrote: And a moral one, at that. Only to show that science isn't equipped to answer moral questions? You guys are missing the point, if your gripe is that the question is vague. And he's right to ask the question from a moral view point. I suspect this is a question of objectively wrong, rather than subjectively wrong. Even if we arrive at a conclusion because 'X' societies view it as wrong, we would still ask, is it really wrong, independent of our opinion? "Murder is generally bad for the development of civilization" is not the same as saying "murder is wrong".
No, it's certainly not the same. But you are missing the point imo. Because one of the two can actually be answered and the other one is a semantic dodge which doesn't lead anywhere.
You: "Is the sky blue?" Me: "Yes it is!" You: "Give me evidence!" Me: "Just look at it. It emits light waves in the blue spectrum. At least in this moment" You: "Yeah, but does it mean it is really blue. I mean, we only see it's reflection. Is it really blue in nature? Seeming blue and really being blue is not the same thing!" Me: "sigh..."
I know you will find the analogy misleading, but is that really so? Maybe "being wrong" is not and cannot be any operable category and is essentially meaningless. Just like being really blue is meaningless. "Blue" is a label we put on stuff we perceive as blue, just like "wrong" is a label we put on stuff we perceive as being "wrong". Don't let yourself be fooled by the fact that moral questions/dilemmas don't have simple answers or even "optimal solutions". They can nonetheless be tackled by rationalism and imo it's the best way to tackle them. In any case trying to find answers that are founded on observable evidence allows us to really explain why we have moral labels, not just take them as divine commands.
On May 05 2010 00:04 Gnosis wrote: And a moral one, at that. Only to show that science isn't equipped to answer moral questions? You guys are missing the point, if your gripe is that the question is vague. And he's right to ask the question from a moral view point. I suspect this is a question of objectively wrong, rather than subjectively wrong. Even if we arrive at a conclusion because 'X' societies view it as wrong, we would still ask, is it really wrong, independent of our opinion? "Murder is generally bad for the development of civilization" is not the same as saying "murder is wrong".
No, it's certainly not the same. But you are missing the point imo. Because one of the two can actually be answered and the other one is a semantic dodge which doesn't lead anywhere.
You: "Is the sky blue?" Me: "Yes it is!" You: "Give me evidence!" Me: "Just look at it. It emits light waves in the blue spectrum. At least in this moment" You: "Yeah, but does it mean it is really blue. I mean, we only see it's reflection. Is it really blue in nature? Seeming blue and really being blue is not the same thing!" Me: "sigh..."
I know you will find the analogy misleading, but is that really so? Maybe "being wrong" is not and cannot be any operable category and is essentially meaningless. Just like being really blue is meaningless. "Blue" is a label we put on stuff we perceive as blue, just like "wrong" is a label we put on stuff we perceive as being "wrong". Don't let yourself be fooled by the fact that moral questions/dilemmas don't have simple answers or even "optimal solutions". They can nonetheless be tackled by rationalism and imo it's the best way to tackle them. In any case trying to find answers that are founded on observable evidence allows us to really explain why we have moral labels, not just take them as divine commands.
I'm having a hard time finding where I mentioned divine command theory (mind you, I do believe that an objective moral set exists), but anyway. I think we agree, you and I. We can take a specific act, examine it, compare and contrast throughout different societies, cultures, etc. and come to a general understanding of the best way to act either personally or corporately (if you wanted to reduce suffering, but maximize happiness, for instance). Calling these moral actions, or "wrong" or "bad" or "right" is ultimately, however, delusional. What we have is simply a set of actions which have shown themselves to be most conducive to the advancement of civilization (and we can arrive at this set of actions through any number of moral theories: deontological, categorical imperatives, virtue theory, utilitarianism, moral objectivism, etc.). On this level being Mother Teresa and being Adolf Hitler are moral equivalents. Helping grandma across the street and raping babies are moral equivalents (which is not the same as equivalent actions. Simply that there is no moral consideration, or weight, to the actions at all). The feelings of disgust, hatred, etc. towards some of these people (i.e. people who rape babies) is entirely unfounded, at least in so far as we call the action "wrong" rather than "not conducive to society". Society 50 years ago perceived homosexuality as a crime, now it's a crime to speak out against homosexuality. "Right" and "wrong" have swapped places, because there really was no "right" and "wrong" (even though we phrase this change as it was "wrong" to treat homosexuals that way). Moral talk is exactly that, double speak, unless there is some foundation to it other than our thoughts on the subject.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
On May 05 2010 00:25 tinman wrote: i assumed i was talking to someone who had read the TEAMLIQUID COMMANDMENTS and who did not post in TWO DIFFERENT USERNAMES that he had made LESS THAN THREE WEEKS APART.
You are absolutely right - I am very sorry. I created this first account using a work e-mail address and found myself unable to log in from home while on holiday (I couldn't access the password from my home PC). I made a second account to which I would have password/admin access from anywhere, completely forgetting this computer would log me back on as Peeling when I returned to work.
It turns out I'm occupying moronsville alone after all. So it goes.
On May 03 2010 14:29 BruceLee6783 wrote: By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
it's easy. if you're Z and he's T, proxy hatch and Silver Build.
I understand what you're saying I think I understand WLC differently than you do. You seem to be taking this "proof" (of the Kalam) as something absolute, or definitive. I take it only as what he believes to be the best explanation for the "evidence" that he's dealing with. That's how I view the difference between mathematics, and philosophy (or science, and philosophy). One has you restricted to "cold" facts, the other lets you take things a step further (which philosophy has always done). Now, Craig may be completely wrong and unjustified in all his views, but if I had to make the judgment personally, I would have to agree with his philosophical speculation (in as far as I understand entropy, beginnings, infinities, etc.) Otherwise, even for science I see a point where it ceases to follow the "scientific method" and becomes suspiciously similar to metaphysics.
Well, WLC refers to it as "proof for the existence of god", not as "speculation about the existence of god", but anyway. With respect to the differentiation between math and philosophy and "going beyond cold facts" I think you are mistaken. First, math is not restricted at all by facts nor based on them (at least from what we usually refer to as facts). It is an axiomatic construct with no necessary representation in reality. That's why it's also not considered as a "real science" by many.
Math and certain branches of philosophy are actually similar in this respect, e.g. the field of logic. Both, math and logic are tools which allow us to describe the world which surrounds us. Whenever we use these tools, we therefore need to make sure that our descriptions actually match with a relevant part of reality. We call the systematic application of these tools "science" and every philosopher worth his salt has always based his reasoning on observable facts.Philosophers might speculate or hypothesize, but whenever they do, they usually make clear when they are entering the realm of meta-physics just like any other scientist would. That is also why what WLC does is not philosophy, but theology! He is an apologist, not a philosopher.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
On May 05 2010 01:04 tinman wrote: dude you shouldn't be so apologetic to someone who's being a complete dick to you.
Well, this is just getting confusing now.
In any case, I'm apologising because I made a mistake, and he/you deserves an apology for the confusion and implied insult. Anyway, I'm logging out now and won't be using this account again.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
Ignoring the analogy you already know is insufficient (I'm sure you can equate the color "blue" with a certain spectrum of light, independent of our observing it), when I use the word objective, I mean objective. Numbers are objective, in the same sense, morality is objective . I'm not confused about what I mean. Morality, like numbers, exist independently of human thought. These are discovered, not invented.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with how you view morality, though I'm agreeing that you're consistent in your view, one I really don't have a problem with.
I understand what you're saying I think I understand WLC differently than you do. You seem to be taking this "proof" (of the Kalam) as something absolute, or definitive. I take it only as what he believes to be the best explanation for the "evidence" that he's dealing with. That's how I view the difference between mathematics, and philosophy (or science, and philosophy). One has you restricted to "cold" facts, the other lets you take things a step further (which philosophy has always done). Now, Craig may be completely wrong and unjustified in all his views, but if I had to make the judgment personally, I would have to agree with his philosophical speculation (in as far as I understand entropy, beginnings, infinities, etc.) Otherwise, even for science I see a point where it ceases to follow the "scientific method" and becomes suspiciously similar to metaphysics.
Well, WLC refers to it as "proof for the existence of god", not as "speculation about the existence of god", but anyway. With respect to the differentiation between math and philosophy and "going beyond cold facts" I think you are mistaken. First, math is not restricted at all by facts nor based on them (at least from what we usually refer to as facts). It is an axiomatic construct with no necessary representation in reality. That's why it's also not considered as a "real science" by many.
Math and certain branches of philosophy are actually similar in this respect, e.g. the field of logic. Both, math and logic are tools which allow us to describe the world which surrounds us. Whenever we use these tools, we therefore need to make sure that our descriptions actually match with a relevant part of reality. We call the systematic application of these tools "science" and every philosopher worth his salt has always based his reasoning on observable facts.Philosophers might speculate or hypothesize, but whenever they do, they usually make clear when they are entering the realm of meta-physics just like any other scientist would. That is also why what WLC does is not philosophy, but theology! He is an apologist, not a philosopher.
Fair enough You might do well to listen to WLC a bit more, he's quite clear about the purpose and substance of his arguments.
Ignoring the analogy you already know is insufficient (I'm sure you can equate the color "blue" with a certain spectrum of light, independent of our observing it), when I use the word objective, I mean objective. Numbers are objective, in the same sense, morality is objective . I'm not confused about what I mean. Morality, like numbers, exist independently of human thought. These are discovered, not invented.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with how you view morality, though I'm agreeing that you're consistent in your view, one I really don't have a problem with.
Thank you for your patience. I think I see much clearer now where we differ. And I disagree strongly. Numbers just like morality are merely concepts. They only exist in our minds and cease to exist when we die. It is what these numbers point to that exists in reality, not the number itself.
We call something "objectively the case", if we can demonstrate to others that things behave like described irrespective of the observer. Morality does not fall into this category per se and I find this quite obvious since it is tied to the value system of a culture. The idea of an "objective morality" which exists without a prior agreement on common values is an intellectual dead end. But if morality depends on values and values need to be agreed upon (not imposed by any "value giver"), then we can use the term objective in the sense that "given certain values" an action is always immoral irrespective of who commits it or who perceives it (as long as we take these values as a common scale or measure). Morality is not discovered, it is the consequence of axioms of value. Likewise math or numbers are not discovered, but are the consequences of axioms on sets. Once a common basis is established, there are consequences which inevetibly follow. Those can hence be discovered.
Ignoring the analogy you already know is insufficient (I'm sure you can equate the color "blue" with a certain spectrum of light, independent of our observing it), when I use the word objective, I mean objective. Numbers are objective, in the same sense, morality is objective . I'm not confused about what I mean. Morality, like numbers, exist independently of human thought. These are discovered, not invented.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with how you view morality, though I'm agreeing that you're consistent in your view, one I really don't have a problem with.
Thank you for your patience. I think I see much clearer now where we differ. And I disagree strongly. Numbers just like morality are merely concepts. They only exist in our minds and cease to exist when we die. It is what these numbers point to that exists in reality, not the number itself.
Sorry I should have been more clear, I think you missed it a bit as a result. As numbers correspond to something in reality, so too would morality. The concept of a number (or the concept of morality) may "cease to exist when we die," though it will remain true that numbers - or morality - describe some aspect of reality independent of us. By this I mean that the equation "2+2=4" could arbitrarily be the same as "II+II=IV", so long as each number in both sets corresponds to the same thing in reality.
Morality does not fall into this category per se and I find this quite obvious since it is tied to the value system of a culture.
That seems to me like a confusion. If the "value system of a culture" was reflective of morality as a thing in reality, then we've no less violated the objective existence of a set of morals. We've simply happened upon a culture that follows them (and has agreed to follow them). The difficulty is discovering what this set of objective morals is (as per my previous post).
The idea of an "objective morality" which exists without a prior agreement on common values is an intellectual dead end. But if morality depends on values and values need to be agreed upon (not imposed by any "value giver"), then we can use the term objective in the sense that "given certain values" an action is always immoral irrespective of who commits it or who perceives it (as long as we take these values as a common scale or measure).
That's still subjective, it's just a word game. The system depends upon perception to be formed, there's no reason to to then condemn everyone because they "perceive otherwise" after the fact. By this I would mean that our perceptions do not relate to some thing in reality.
Morality is not discovered, it is the consequence of axioms of value. Likewise math or numbers are not discovered, but are the consequences of axioms on sets. Once a common basis is established, there are consequences which inevetibly follow. Those can hence be discovered.
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
having words written in stone or agreed upon by a group of people doesn't make them objective. they're still subjective to each individual. objective means it exists as an object in reality, and unless you mean synapses in the brain or something, there's nothing objective about morals nor numbers for that matter, no matter how many believe in it or how many twos can you fill a blackboard with.
well you can also argue for the hard emergence of patterns, like being able to create something out of nothing, but I hardly understand that
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality? Also people can see this video of QualiaSoup where he explains some moral stuff and such.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality?
Sorry, I didn't realize I was going deep (a critical thinking thread, no?). Basically I enjoy learning, Miramax seems like a smart fellow, so I engaged him as he engaged me. I don't really mean to debate, but I do like discussions
The question was "is murder wrong" (or something close enough to that), not is killing wrong. It would be best to define our terms, then we can move ahead in our discussion. In doing so, we can avoid confusing the two (as you've done above). As I look through my dictionary I see murder defined as the "unlawful killing of another," I think to that I would add the word innocent. Killing is defined as the deprivation of life. I believe murder is always wrong, but I don't believe killing is always wrong (the execution of a murderer, war, etc.). There are other questions which are corollaries to this, such as "what about innocent civilians killed in war?" and while the questions are important, I think they are at this point simply red herring. Though don't mistake what I'm saying, there are serious and complex moral considerations to these sorts of questions and "moral dilemmas". Not even my statement "murder is always wrong" is without it's gray areas, just as my belief that killing isn't always wrong isn't without its gray areas. I think the unfortunate reality of the world that we live in is such that violating an objective moral standard may at times be necessary.So please don't get it in your head that I'm trying to talk in black and white terms and keep the discussion on such a level. An act itself may be wrong, but we may still be required to perform it.
As for where I believe this objective moral set comes from, I believe I said it in a previous post, a divine moral law giver--God, in other words. You could call it divine command theory if you like, but I don't know if that would be entirely accurate.
If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality?
If I might interject: you see how well it works out for all concerned
Let's say for instance a society decided murder was ok. It wouldn't work very well: the constant murders, the constant need to watch your back; all very distracting and time-consuming - and a neighbouring society could simply stroll in, murder everyone and take over without facing any organised resistance.
Or let's say a society decided that causing any harm to anyone was utterly forbidden. Same end result: sooner or later someone will stroll in and enslave or wipe out such a society.
Objectively, these moral codes are sub-optimal - you can tell because they get stomped by different ones. Nihilism self-destructs, or is swept aside. Pacifism is a luxury affordable only by the idealistic few. How much someone likes or dislikes a particular moral code makes no difference to its performance in a competitive environment. That makes them objectively comparable.
If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality?
If I might interject: you see how well it works out for all concerned
Let's say for instance a society decided murder was ok. It wouldn't work very well: the constant murders, the constant need to watch your back; all very distracting and time-consuming - and a neighbouring society could simply stroll in, murder everyone and take over without facing any organised resistance.
Or let's say a society decided that causing any harm to anyone was utterly forbidden. Same end result: sooner or later someone will stroll in and enslave or wipe out such a society.
Objectively, these moral codes are sub-optimal - you can tell because they get stomped by different ones. Nihilism self-destructs, or is swept aside. Pacifism is a luxury affordable only by the idealistic few. How much someone likes or dislikes a particular moral code makes no difference to its performance in a competitive environment. That makes them objectively comparable.
You've demonstrated how certain norms can help a society in avoiding death. They may be efficient at doing so. But there's nothing anywhere, objectively saying that you ought to avoid death. It only becomes better when you adopt it as your goal. The fact is that there are people who kill for pleasure or money, and who suicide out of misery.
I concur with you that a society that doesn't value life will ultimately die. But what remains is no prescription for what should be. It's still your decision, and my decision, to live.
Ok i am sorry i figured out just now. I understand you i don't want to reduce discussion level but i think these are important enough things to find a proper answer too.
Again i think my point stays the same. As you define murder "unlawful killing of another" your morals come from law not from god. Or maybe you mean law of god but since we don't know if there is a god or even he has a law for us people i'll consider this as human law. And the law itself is not permanent and can be multiple types of law in different groups(claimed that coming from different gods maybe?) which means there is no absolute truth. Even though there would be a god and has a law for us people i don't know how can we be exactly sure that it is his thoughts when there is not evidence of any kind to the books people claim belongs to his ideas.(Not even considering conflicts in the books) If you don't believe in a theist god the question stays the same too.
I do sincerly believe that murder is wrong though. But even every single person in earth would agree that murder is wrong it still wouldn't be objective truth because of the possibility that future people may not agree. It shouldn't have left to agree or not. Explains the lack of absolute unquestionable rule. And i am sorry if make some mistakes using English i know it is not perfect, as you can figure out i use basic language i am still learning.
I'm still unclear what 'objective' morality would mean. Principles for behavior cannot be 'true' or 'false'... they can be the principles most likely to achieve certain ends, but that only matters if there's one 'objective' goal.
Even if you somehow prove there is a particular being (deity or otherwise) with that particular goal, and the principles she suggests for humans are the objectively best principles to achieve that goal... that only means they're the best principles to achieve that being's goal. To coherently argue that, objectively, everyone 'should' adopt those principles, you'd also have to show that the goal you've singled out is everyone's goal (or that their goal is unattainable, and this is the closest attainable goal to it)...
On May 05 2010 10:02 Aelfric wrote: Ok i am sorry i figured out just now. I understand you i don't want to reduce discussion level but i think these are important enough things to find a proper answer too.
Again i think my point stays the same. As you define murder "unlawful killing of another" your morals come from law not from god. Or maybe you mean law of god but since we don't know if there is a god or even he has a law for us people i'll consider this as human law. And the law itself is not permanent and can be multiple types of law in different groups(claimed that coming from different gods maybe?) which means there is no absolute truth. Even though there would be a god and has a law for us people i don't know how can we be exactly sure that it is his thoughts when there is not evidence of any kind to the books people claim belongs to his ideas.(Not even considering conflicts in the books) If you don't believe in a theist god the question stays the same too.
I do sincerly believe that murder is wrong though. But even every single person in earth would agree that murder is wrong it still wouldn't be objective truth because of the possibility that future people may not agree. It shouldn't have left to agree or not. Explains the lack of absolute unquestionable rule. And i am sorry if make some mistakes using English i know it is not perfect, as you can figure out i use basic language i am still learning.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "reduce discussion level"? This isn't me going deep, or trying to sound profound... This is "every day" me (much to the disdain of many people, irl).
The dictionary I quoted from probably was referring to human law, though I would extend it to divine law (I think I would hold the - maybe untenable - position that human law is, generally, a reflection of divine law). The question becomes, "how can we know divine law?" (if in fact there is such a thing). A few ways come to mind. The first is revelation, which is what you have in the Torah, Christian scriptures, Qu'ran, etc. (which you mention internal conflicts). The second way is that people have been created such that divine law is "imprinted on their hearts," which is a view taken by Christians (or at least taught in Christian scriptures). The third way is through reason, perhaps an idea adapted from miramax that we begin with a subjective moral set, and are able through this foundation to discover the objective moral set. So even with difficult (maybe impossible) questions such as these, we have a few places where we could begin.
Edit: Oh, sorry! I thought you were referring to the conversation, not the words we were using. I apologize, I completely misunderstood you. Let me know if I'm still using words outside of what you're familiar with.
Let's say for instance a society decided murder was ok. It wouldn't work very well: the constant murders, the constant need to watch your back; all very distracting and time-consuming - and a neighbouring society could simply stroll in, murder everyone and take over without facing any organised resistance.
Or let's say a society decided that causing any harm to anyone was utterly forbidden. Same end result: sooner or later someone will stroll in and enslave or wipe out such a society.
Objectively, these moral codes are sub-optimal - you can tell because they get stomped by different ones. Nihilism self-destructs, or is swept aside. Pacifism is a luxury affordable only by the idealistic few. How much someone likes or dislikes a particular moral code makes no difference to its performance in a competitive environment. That makes them objectively comparable.
I suppose different moral codes are objectively comparable, to some extent, if they result in your society being destroyed in war. What about when they don't? Either way, the purpose of morality isn't really to increase the military power of your country to protect your country. Or if you're saying it is, then that's an underlying assumption which you'd have to prove for your argument to be seriously considered.
Simply from experience reading forums, my observations are that people do not in fact base their opinions on logic and critical thinking, but rather emotion. Those that claim they do are in fact the most bigoted, imo.
On May 05 2010 13:45 fight_or_flight wrote: Simply from experience reading forums, my observations are that people do not in fact base their opinions on logic and critical thinking, but rather emotion. Those that claim they do are in fact the most bigoted, imo.
On May 05 2010 08:28 Aelfric wrote: This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality? Also people can see this video of QualiaSoup where he explains some moral stuff and such. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4DT5sHNWs
all soup does in that video is bitch further about how "theists" (by which he means christians so just fucking use the word you fucking fucktard) are mislead because they have no "evidence" for their beliefs. seriously
i watched that video because i wanted to hear him "explain some moral stuff." genuinely interested. the only argument he even implies about morality is that things like murder and rape are wrong because everyone (read: he) knows they are wrong.
seriously i give like half a fuck about the whole rest of the conversation going on in this thread. but the fact remains that qualiasoups videos are the pure distilled douchebaggery of someone whose had his head up his own ass so long he enjoys the smell.
i mean i hate christians as much as the next guy. but what i hate even more are bastards like qualia over there that take themselves to be the fucking high exemplars of clear thinking but are really just cases of raging emotastic that got insulted sometime by a toolbag with a bible. maybe they took his lunch money. no idea.
and PS aelfric there is nothing in that video that would lead me to believe he would agree with you that "you have to explain what source that is independent from humans makes it objective" considering it's THAT EXACT MINDSET he is taking to task under the auspice of theism. go watch it again.
On May 05 2010 08:28 Aelfric wrote: This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality? Also people can see this video of QualiaSoup where he explains some moral stuff and such. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4DT5sHNWs
all soup does in that video is bitch further about how "theists" (by which he means christians so just fucking use the word you fucking fucktard) are mislead because they have no "evidence" for their beliefs. seriously
i watched that video because i wanted to hear him "explain some moral stuff." genuinely interested. the only argument he even implies about morality is that things like murder and rape are wrong because everyone (read: he) knows they are wrong.
seriously i give like half a fuck about the whole rest of the conversation going on in this thread. but the fact remains that qualiasoups videos are the pure distilled douchebaggery of someone whose had his head up his own ass so long he enjoys the smell.
i mean i hate christians as much as the next guy. but what i hate even more are bastards like qualia over there that take themselves to be the fucking high exemplars of clear thinking but are really just cases of raging emotastic that got insulted sometime by a toolbag with a bible. maybe they took his lunch money. no idea.
and PS aelfric there is nothing in that video that would lead me to believe he would agree with you that "you have to explain what source that is independent from humans makes it objective" considering it's THAT EXACT MINDSET he is taking to task under the auspice of theism. go watch it again.
Honestly after watching that video and reading your post I find it hard to believe that we've both watched the same video. I am a total loss as to where you found examples of him "bitching about theists being mislead" or where he points to himself as being an "examplar of clear thinking". After having watched the video twice I still can't find any flaws in the logic that he uses that would lead you to hate him so much.
I don't want to think that you're just a raging moron so please show me what the fuck I'm missing cause apparently we're getting two COMPLETELY different ideas about that video.
approx 45 - most people who have an agenda to undermine atheism of course have an interest in creating their own self-serving definition of morality.
approx 1:48 - we're taught by theists who want to discredit atheists blah blah blah that "God's nature provides the ABSOLUTE STANDARD" blah blah blah... this reasoning suffers from several assumptions.
approx 2:00 - the greatest [problematic] assumption is that a god exists.
approx 2:38 - the argument for morality-from-god has many problems that many who use it seem not to have considered.
(note theist standing on pedestal labeled "morally superior.")
approx 3:40 - if theists claim that they have moral certainty, we are justified in demanding they tell us how they gained access to these exclusive moral truths.
you know what fuck it. watch the video.
and my problem with the video wasn't about his logic. my problem with the video was the lack of any argument at all being offered for how to approach morality (which is what it was billed to us as). qualia just enjoys the sound of his own voice picking apart a version of "theism" (which is still a gayass word) that no breathing human being would subscribe to in the first place.
There are a metric fuckton of theists who condemn atheists as evil and lacking morals. I used to post on a political forum inhabited primarily by conservative Christians, so all of the "no God = no morals, you only don't believe in God because you want to fuck gophers all day" attacks surfaced at least once a week.
Qualiasoup is not inventing the theists who rage against nonbelievers via faux-logical attacks. Nor is he inventing the theists, who he mentioned several times in the videos posted here, who do not attack nonbelievers.
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in.
Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim.
One of the most important values of modern societies is equality of rights. Why is that so? It certainly wasn't so in the past, and there were and still are whole societies founded on an inequality of rights and priviliges for certain classes, races or religions. Equality of rights as a value is deduced from the claim that people are born equal (in all respects that matter). This is a claim about reality and can be falsified (I recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould to everybody interested to see how biased science tried to justify suppression of race and gender by sacrificing critical thinking in the past). It turns out we cannot reject this claim, so all over a sudden this value seems to reflect a part of reality. Anybody who wants to defend a chosen "race", "sex" or "religion" needs to bring forth evidence and if he can't then this claim is dismissed. Religious systems, and especially Christianity, has a track record of arguing for racial, sexual and religious discrimination and whenever they reject the notion of evidence, they are immune to real-world criticism.
The problem with your objective morality from god is that you can never argue against members of a different religion. You can only say that they are praying to the wrong god or figured out what god said incorrectly. You would need to say: Well, if your god is real then your actions would be moral, since he said so. Instead I can say: Well, your actions might be moral according to your values, but your values don't reflect reality and they are detrimental to the development of your society here on earth. And this is irrespective of your god being real or not and I can demonstrate it.
Neither of the two will probably convince a devout believer, but the latter train of though might at least convince those, who value life in this world over their possible afterlife.
On May 05 2010 16:35 Severedevil wrote: There are a metric fuckton of theists who condemn atheists as evil and lacking morals. I used to post on a political forum inhabited primarily by conservative Christians, so all of the "no God = no morals, you only don't believe in God because you want to fuck gophers all day" attacks surfaced at least once a week.
Qualiasoup is not inventing the theists who rage against nonbelievers via faux-logical attacks. Nor is he inventing the theists, who he mentioned several times in the videos posted here, who do not attack nonbelievers.
hahahahaha... sorry that you have met the dumbasses face to face. but mark my words if qualia were writing a textbook on psychology he would start it with a chapter that thoroughly debunks humoralism and he would feel fucking special and cutting edge about it.
thing is, though, qualia never, like i said, explains how you can have morality apart from god. all he does is read the word out of a dictionary. went to the video on alafrics advice to have moral stuff explained. got 9 minutes of some douchebag shitting himself because there are people on this earth who espouse retarded ideas.
On May 05 2010 15:54 tinman wrote: approx 45 - most people who have an agenda to undermine atheism of course have an interest in creating their own self-serving definition of morality.
approx 1:48 - we're taught by theists who want to discredit atheists blah blah blah that "God's nature provides the ABSOLUTE STANDARD" blah blah blah... this reasoning suffers from several assumptions.
approx 2:00 - the greatest [problematic] assumption is that a god exists.
approx 2:38 - the argument for morality-from-god has many problems that many who use it seem not to have considered.
(note theist standing on pedestal labeled "morally superior.")
approx 3:40 - if theists claim that they have moral certainty, we are justified in demanding they tell us how they gained access to these exclusive moral truths.
you know what fuck it. watch the video.
and my problem with the video wasn't about his logic. my problem with the video was the lack of any argument at all being offered for how to approach morality (which is what it was billed to us as). qualia just enjoys the sound of his own voice picking apart a version of "theism" (which is still a gayass word) that no breathing human being would subscribe to in the first place.
dick. head. dude incarnates it.
I mean I see all the points of the video you've referenced but I still don't see what the problem with any of those statements, other then the first one where yeah I guess he states the obvious there but I don't see how that warrants you calling him a douchebag. I'm also failing to see why you have a problem with his video not offering an arguement on how to approach morality, seeing as how nowhere in the video, video title, or video description does he state or even imply that that was the purpose of the video.
I can see now where our view of the video differs, as I personally also enjoy the sound of people picking apart that particular version of "theism" that he does, as I see that version of theism causes a lot of hate and prejudice and overall problems to society. And honestly, I think you're the one being a total fucking douchebag by personally attacking and berating the guy for expressing his thoughts on a subject just because they differ from yours.
daz maybe you missed the part where aelfric posted the video in order to enlighten the thread on "moral stuff." maybe you also missed the part where my entire post in response to aelfric was telling him that, no, qualia did not explain moral stuff. he spent the whole video bitching about theism.
reference paragraphs 1, 2, & 5 of that post.
then go watch some more qualia videos and congratulate yourself on totally being smarter than those silly theists!
then step off my jock and learn how to say "dick. head. [blank] incarnate(s) it." just once. i realize i'm an admirable dude but hell.
He quoted the definition of morality, which did not require or invoke a deity or other supernatural element, and is therefore fully compatible with atheism. You can find a variety of moral constructions from axioms on line, if you want them. MiraMax is currently showing how to construct morality from observations in this particular thread.
I've also seen an interesting moral basis from someone called DataPacRat, who (IIRC) wants to live for hundreds of years, and therefore is in strong support of principles that will maintain and uplift society to develop that technology. This is inherently selfish, but has attractive results - violence, prejudice, and ignorance are natural enemies of advancement. (The most obvious concern is that society might perform brutal experiments in search of immortality, but he would likely point out that a society which disrespects life and its citizenry to that extent is unlikely to successfully find immortality and even more unlikely to be a safe place to enjoy that immortality.)
On May 05 2010 17:07 tinman wrote: daz maybe you missed the part where aelfric posted the video in order to enlighten the thread on "moral stuff." maybe you also missed the part where my entire post in response to aelfric was telling him that, no, qualia did not explain moral stuff. he spent the whole video bitching about theism.
reference paragraphs 1, 2, & 5 of that post.
then go watch some more qualia videos and congratulate yourself on totally being smarter than those silly theists!
then step off my jock and learn how to say "dick. head. [blank] incarnate(s) it." just once. i realize i'm an admirable dude but hell.
No I didn't miss aelfric's post. What I did miss however is how the fact that aelfric misled you is in anyway a reflection on QualiaSoup or why it would make any normal person launch on a mildly retarded verbal assault on him. I also missed the part where you address any of the points I made in my post.
i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
On May 05 2010 17:14 tinman wrote: and sorry if i don't buy miramax's sweet argument that
a) we all agreeing on something makes it "objective" and b) we cannot scientifically reject the claim that "all people are born equal"
i mean god damn..
Would you care to elaborate? How do we find out whether something is "objectively the case" other than observing reality and agree on what we see? How can we ever convince others that they perceive something incorrectly other than demonstrating it to them in reality to reach agreement?
Do you think that members of a certain race, gender or religion are consistently different from another, so that it should result in an institutionalized different treatment? Where is your evidence for that? And where have you been the last 100 years where science demonstrated that difference in intellectual capacity for instance (which is a meaningful criteria for justifying different treatment) is an individual trait, not racial, sexual or religious?
On May 05 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
What a great reason to hate someone. What you really made clear is how big of a douchebag you are. And man trust me if I could be reversing those problems I would be.
On May 05 2010 17:14 tinman wrote: and sorry if i don't buy miramax's sweet argument that
a) we all agreeing on something makes it "objective" and b) we cannot scientifically reject the claim that "all people are born equal"
i mean god damn..
Would you care to elaborate? How do we find out whether something is "objectively the case" other than observing reality and agree on what we see? How can we ever convince others that they perceive something incorrectly other than demonstrating it to them in reality to reach agreement?
Do you think that members of a certain race, gender or religion are consistently different from another, so that it should result in an institutionalized different treatment? Where is your evidence for that? And where have you been the last 100 years where science demonstrated that difference in intellectual capacity for instance (which is a meaningful criteria for justifying different treatment) is an individual trait, not racial, sexual or religious?
no i don't really care to elaborate. what's to elaborate on?
obviously our agreeing on something has no bearing on whether it's fact. obviously if you take two people at birth, one with trisomy 21 and one with standard chromosomes they're not "equal."
i mean i don't even know what there's to argue about.
On May 05 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
What a great reason to hate someone. What you really made clear is how big of a douchebag you are. And man trust me if I could be reversing those problems I would be.
i'm telling you, man. we need forward thinking young idealists like yourself out there saving the world from those damned theists.
On May 05 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote: You've demonstrated how certain norms can help a society in avoiding death. They may be efficient at doing so. But there's nothing anywhere, objectively saying that you ought to avoid death. It only becomes better when you adopt it as your goal.
True, but the future belongs to those who survive. The consequences of deciding otherwise are elimination. If the universe will only permit you to hold one opinion on a subject, that opinion is by default objectively 'right'.
On May 05 2010 17:14 tinman wrote: and sorry if i don't buy miramax's sweet argument that
a) we all agreeing on something makes it "objective" and b) we cannot scientifically reject the claim that "all people are born equal"
i mean god damn..
Would you care to elaborate? How do we find out whether something is "objectively the case" other than observing reality and agree on what we see? How can we ever convince others that they perceive something incorrectly other than demonstrating it to them in reality to reach agreement?
Do you think that members of a certain race, gender or religion are consistently different from another, so that it should result in an institutionalized different treatment? Where is your evidence for that? And where have you been the last 100 years where science demonstrated that difference in intellectual capacity for instance (which is a meaningful criteria for justifying different treatment) is an individual trait, not racial, sexual or religious?
no i don't really care to elaborate. what's to elaborate on?
obviously our agreeing on something has no bearing on whether it's fact. obviously if you take two people at birth, one with trisomy 21 and one with standard chromosomes they're not "equal."
i mean i don't even know what there's to argue about.
Well, obviously you didn't try that hard to understand me.
Obviously, agreeing on something is all we have to call something objective. Since objective means irrespective of the observer, but we can't observe without an oberserver, we need to make many observations by different people and agreeing on it. Sure agreement is not sufficient to make it right, we could all be deluded and the dilemma is we will never really find out whether something is absolutely correct. Those who still disagree need to demonstrate why, otherwise they are dismissed. That's how gaining insight works.
Obviously, we treat people differently according to their individual traits, not according to criteria that don't matter in a specific contexts, just like race, sex or religion don't matter in most contexts. That's why a value which dictates that members of a certain race should have privileges is unfounded in reality.
This seems so obvious that I don't know how somebody can argue against it ... but that would be me.
agreeing, dismissing, accepting, rejecting. none of these have to do with something being fact. they have to do with people arguing about the facts. i can call something objective even if no one in the world agrees with me. if i'm right i'm right. if i'm wrong i'm wrong. the 6 billion other opinions on the matter don't mean a thing. neither does mine.
you're talking about disseminating knowledge. but you skipped the part about how we got the knowledge in the first place.
oh wait i forgot it's because science proved all people are equal. right they are all equal and all individual and all unique and special. i forgot about that mythical dogma that science proved for us.
and i have no idea what race has to do with any of this. race is an outdated term anyway. at least "species" carries some taxonomical weight.
sigh at this thread, second rate philosophy videos, and i cant even believe people are so confused about the difference between the subjective and objective.
On May 05 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times.
What a great reason to hate someone. What you really made clear is how big of a douchebag you are. And man trust me if I could be reversing those problems I would be.
i'm telling you, man. we need forward thinking young idealists like yourself out there saving the world from those damned theists.
I'm not an idealist but the rest we can both agree on.
agreeing, dismissing, accepting, rejecting. none of these have to do with something being fact. they have to do with people arguing about the facts. i can call something objective even if no one in the world agrees with me. if i'm right i'm right. if i'm wrong i'm wrong. the 6 billion other opinions on the matter don't mean a thing. neither does mine.
you're talking about disseminating knowledge. but you skipped the part about how we got the knowledge in the first place.
oh wait i forgot it's because science proved all people are equal. right they are all equal and all individual and all unique and special. i forgot about that mythical dogma that science proved for us.
and i have no idea what race has to do with any of this. race is an outdated term anyway. at least "species" carries some taxonomical weight.
Of course you can call everything objective, if you like. You can call wood creative, if you like. The problem is that people will probably not understand you, so I would not recommend doing so, unless you don't want to be understood. You are turning in circles when you say that no opinion matters and you are actually demonstrably wrong. Opinion is all we have and it actually does matter a lot. If you can convince a lot of people to agreeing with you, you can make a big difference. This is demonstrably the case.
I didn't skip the part about gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge and disseminating knowledge essentially requires the same basic tools. You make observations in reality. Test them. And then demonstrate to others that your observations hold true. The last part is crucial to reach objectivity, since it brings it away from the subject (you) to the collective. We call something "objectively the case" only if it can be demonstrated to others. If it cannot be demonstrated it is subjective. What we perceive as being "objectively the case" can change and should change whenever our knowledge changes and our knowledge about something changes, whenever we can demonstrate that something in reality does not match with what we thought we knew. Do you see the connection?
You also still don't get the part about equality. What I meant with "people are born equal" is, that a priori (without knowing anything subjective about a person), every person is the same. Any difference in institutionalized treatment needs to be justified by an observable difference in reality. Almost all of these differences are demonstrably individual. That's all I wanted to say and you seem to agree.
Race is a somewhat outdated concept, since there is hardly any definition agreed upon. Your taxonomical example exactly proves my point though. We are all equal in the sense that we all belong to the same species. That's exactly from what we deduce equality of rights. We are all different in the sense that we are individually different. From that we deduce differences in rights.
opinion may matter to you. obviously being understood and appreciated and listened-to does. but opinion is not "all we have." there is, in fact, no "we." your idea of a "we," your idea of "our knowledge," your idea of a "difference" to be made are all fictions, quaint little fictions. your "institutions" and the imperative you feel that they "deduce" the right "rights." those too.
personally i have no idea where you are getting any of this. you don't live in an institution do you? i suppose that could explain these rather vivid hallucinations you suffer about the nature, validity, and future of moral inquiry.
On May 05 2010 18:38 tinman wrote: opinion may matter to you. obviously being understood and appreciated and listened-to does. but opinion is not "all we have." there is, in fact, no "we." your idea of a "we," your idea of "our knowledge," your idea of a "difference" to be made are all fictions, quaint little fictions. your "institutions" and the imperative you feel that they "deduce" the right "rights." those too.
personally i have no idea where you are getting any of this. you don't live in an institution do you? i suppose that could explain these rather vivid hallucinations you suffer about the nature, validity, and future of moral inquiry.
Well, all you expressed is just opinion. So if you do have more than opinions, then tell me something that is not an opinion. Oh, but that's impossible!? What a pity ...
Opinions can reflect reality accurately or inaccurately, they can be right or wrong. But you will only find out by testing them and if you want an "objective view" the only possibility you have is to consult others. That's a simple fact.
I can clearly see that you have no idea where I am getting this from and that's a pity for you. Fortunately the majority of people intuitively understand that what I say is true. That Is also why the first thing people say whenever they perceive something incredible is: "Did you just see that?". Not all hope is lost for you, however, since there are many good books which explain things more slowly and deeply than I ever could. I suggest you just read one of them! See you around!
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in.
Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim.
Okay, I get it (makes a lot of sense, as long as we can avoid equivocating between values and reality). Another question then. In the billions of years of history that no (recognizable?) life in the universe existed, were moral claims still valid? Or did these claims only become valid and are dependent upon the advent of life, and if so, how are moral claims intrinsic to the universe, and independent of our perception of them, one way or another?
One of the most important values of modern societies is equality of rights. Why is that so? It certainly wasn't so in the past, and there were and still are whole societies founded on an inequality of rights and priviliges for certain classes, races or religions. Equality of rights as a value is deduced from the claim that people are born equal (in all respects that matter). This is a claim about reality and can be falsified (I recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould to everybody interested to see how biased science tried to justify suppression of race and gender by sacrificing critical thinking in the past). It turns out we cannot reject this claim, so all over a sudden this value seems to reflect a part of reality. Anybody who wants to defend a chosen "race", "sex" or "religion" needs to bring forth evidence and if he can't then this claim is dismissed. Religious systems, and especially Christianity, has a track record of arguing for racial, sexual and religious discrimination and whenever they reject the notion of evidence, they are immune to real-world criticism.
That's too bad about Christians, should have read and followed their scriptures more closely As for the moral claim that everyone is born equal, how do you morally justify this statement? I'm having difficulty seeing how the statement can be made, if we have nothing but the "cold facts" of reality (ultimately no purpose, meaning, etc. aside from what we give it). How do we know we're not just agreeing to believe in a "Noble lie"?
The problem with your objective morality from god is that you can never argue against members of a different religion. You can only say that they are praying to the wrong god or figured out what god said incorrectly. You would need to say: Well, if your god is real then your actions would be moral, since he said so. Instead I can say: Well, your actions might be moral according to your values, but your values don't reflect reality and they are detrimental to the development of your society here on earth. And this is irrespective of your god being real or not and I can demonstrate it.
Not at all Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say. Keep in mind that I would believe that God would have made morality an intrinsic part of the universe, so I'm quite able to say, "your morality doesn't reflect reality..." etc. Which means that regardless of one's views of morality, commonalities may (and indeed are) found among many people. And frankly, behaving morally is a lot more important to me than having the right belief about them.
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in.
Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim.
Okay, I get it (makes a lot of sense, as long as we can avoid equivocating between values and reality). Another question then. In the billions of years of history that no (recognizable?) life in the universe existed, were moral claims still valid? Or did these claims only become valid and are dependent upon the advent of life, and if so, how are moral claims intrinsic to the universe, and independent of our perception of them, one way or another?
Well, this this touches a classical dilemma. Does the tree make any sound, if there is nobody there to hear it? All concepts can be valid or not. And if they are valid then they are valid irrespective of whether somebody has thought them up or not. It is an intrinsical property. So, I believe that there is an infinite amount of valid concepts and claims about reality that noone has ever thought up. I agree that I cannot demonstrate this and fortunately it is not important whether this is true or not for the application of a concept which is identified as valid
One of the most important values of modern societies is equality of rights. Why is that so? It certainly wasn't so in the past, and there were and still are whole societies founded on an inequality of rights and priviliges for certain classes, races or religions. Equality of rights as a value is deduced from the claim that people are born equal (in all respects that matter). This is a claim about reality and can be falsified (I recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould to everybody interested to see how biased science tried to justify suppression of race and gender by sacrificing critical thinking in the past). It turns out we cannot reject this claim, so all over a sudden this value seems to reflect a part of reality. Anybody who wants to defend a chosen "race", "sex" or "religion" needs to bring forth evidence and if he can't then this claim is dismissed. Religious systems, and especially Christianity, has a track record of arguing for racial, sexual and religious discrimination and whenever they reject the notion of evidence, they are immune to real-world criticism.
That's too bad about Christians, should have read and followed their scriptures more closely As for the moral claim that everyone is born equal, how do you morally justify this statement? I'm having difficulty seeing how the statement can be made, if we have nothing but the "cold facts" of reality (ultimately no purpose, meaning, etc. aside from what we give it). How do we know we're not just agreeing to believe in a "Noble lie"?
I don't understand what you mean by "morally justifying" a statement. It implies a claim about reality and this claim is valid as far as we can know so far. There is no reason why a christian bank robber should be treated differently than a muslim bank robber or that a male could become president, but a female not. So we should organize the rules of our societey accordingly. This way of argument actually works for all levels and even the most basic needs of people. I believe that if we had conclusive evidence that women are under no circumstances able to rule a country, we would be justified to introduce a law that inhibits women from ruling countries. Why would we not? And how could we determine that we do not believe a lie?? Well, the best method to distinguish fact from fiction is to OBSERVE REALITY and DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE TRUE (sorry, for the caps, but that's exactly how we started). That is why evidence is also necessary in moral debates, whenever a value implies a claim about the real world
The problem with your objective morality from god is that you can never argue against members of a different religion. You can only say that they are praying to the wrong god or figured out what god said incorrectly. You would need to say: Well, if your god is real then your actions would be moral, since he said so. Instead I can say: Well, your actions might be moral according to your values, but your values don't reflect reality and they are detrimental to the development of your society here on earth. And this is irrespective of your god being real or not and I can demonstrate it.
Not at all Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say.
I am all for objective morality, but I want objectiveness to be used the same way as it is used in any other state of affairs! Why is it that objectivity in the matter of "size of things" is reached by agreeing on a meaning and an operable way to measure it, but in the matter of "moral" it has to come from a god? What you seem to mean is absolute morality or an objectivity which is not contingent on our understanding of the world, but external to us. This is an intellectual dead end. How do you convince a muslim that it is wrong to force women to wear burqas using absolute morality from god? It is their god which they are claiming to follow! Don't you see a problem there?
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
On May 05 2010 20:18 Gnosis wrote: Not at all Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say. Keep in mind that I would believe that God would have made morality an intrinsic part of the universe, so I'm quite able to say, "your morality doesn't reflect reality..." etc. Which means that regardless of one's views of morality, commonalities may (and indeed are) found among many people. And frankly, behaving morally is a lot more important to me than having the right belief about them.
I don't mean to hate, but if objective morality is really important to you, you should think about the following: (1) Your morality depends on the existence of a god, in the sense that should your god not exist you would not consider his moral laws objective or even valid. (2) This god could so far not be demonstrated other than by personal revelation and we found no impartial method that allows a detection. (3) It follows from (2) that the notion of a god is subjective in nature, since it cannot be seperated from the observer. In other words, there is no experiment which has a predicted outcome, where the prediction is derived from the existence of your god.
It follows from (1) and (3) that the basis of your morality is deeply subjective and therefore your morality itself is subjective in nature, as you cannot demonstrate it's validity to anybody else, who does not belief in your god in the first place. That is also why belief in a god is such a convenient way to justify varying, but absolute(!) morals in different cultures.
It seems to me that if you really have a problem with subjective morality than you would need to think of a different foundation to build on. Maybe you could try mine :-P
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in.
Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim.
Okay, I get it (makes a lot of sense, as long as we can avoid equivocating between values and reality). Another question then. In the billions of years of history that no (recognizable?) life in the universe existed, were moral claims still valid? Or did these claims only become valid and are dependent upon the advent of life, and if so, how are moral claims intrinsic to the universe, and independent of our perception of them, one way or another?
Well, this this touches a classical dilemma. Does the tree make any sound, if there is nobody there to hear it? All concepts can be valid or not. And if they are valid then they are valid irrespective of whether somebody has thought them up or not. It is an intrinsical property. So, I believe that there is an infinite amount of valid concepts and claims about reality that noone has ever thought up. I agree that I cannot demonstrate this and fortunately it is not important whether this is true or not for the application of a concept which is identified as valid
I never did give that "classical dilemma" much serious thought (or weight, for that matter). Next question, then. If morality is an intrinsic property of the universe, how is it possible, then, that moral claims exist at all apart from moral agents? How are moral imperatives an integral part of the universe at a time when such actions were effectively impossible to perform?
I don't understand what you mean by "morally justifying" a statement. It implies a claim about reality and this claim is valid as far as we can know so far. There is no reason why a christian bank robber should be treated differently than a muslim bank robber or that a male could become president, but a female not. So we should organize the rules of our societey accordingly. This way of argument actually works for all levels and even the most basic needs of people. I believe that if we had conclusive evidence that women are under no circumstances able to rule a country, we would be justified to introduce a law that inhibits women from ruling countries. Why would we not? And how could we determine that we do not believe a lie?? Well, the best method to distinguish fact from fiction is to OBSERVE REALITY and DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE TRUE (sorry, for the caps, but that's exactly how we started). That is why evidence is also necessary in moral debates, whenever a value implies a claim about the real world
What I'm asking is what foundation do you have for thinking that all people are born equal. I know you're telling me that we need to "OBSERVE REALITY" and "DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE TRUE," but you have a problem with that answer, and it's that you also believe that moral imperatives are a property of the universe, existing independent of moral agents (as far as I understood what you said above). So irrespective of any appeal to human behavior, how do you justify your view? Now, I certainly agree with you, I think all people are born equal (or created equal), I just don't know how you're arriving at your view.
Even still, I might be able to give such-and-such reasons for why an act should be considered moral or immoral, but the real question is this: once I've arrived at my view, exactly what is my view corresponding to in reality? If it's not corresponding to anything in reality (by that I mean some property of the universe), then it's a fiction.
I am all for objective morality, but I want objectiveness to be used the same way as it is used in any other state of affairs! Why is it that objectivity in the matter of "size of things" is reached by agreeing on a meaning and an operable way to measure it, but in the matter of "moral" it has to come from a god? What you seem to mean is absolute morality or an objectivity which is not contingent on our understanding of the world, but external to us. This is an intellectual dead end. How do you convince a muslim that it is wrong to force women to wear burqas using absolute morality from god? It is their god which they are claiming to follow! Don't you see a problem there?
Edit: Screwed up layout.
If I understood you properly, it's because there is no "best size of things," just as there is no "best possible Island" (Gaunilo's objection to Anselm). There may be a "best size" for certain tasks, but I'm not familiar with a rule (or a law) that holds that 'X' is the best size for everything. The reason morality has to come from god (or at least it's asserted) is because it's seen as a difficulty how it could come from anywhere else, for the problems (or problem) listed above. Besides, if we come to a conclusion through agreement, then you aren't really all for objective morality (you're all for subjective morality).
As for how I would convince a Muslim that burqas are wrong, well, in and of themselves, are they? What moral law dictates that a woman should not wear a burqas, even if she wants to? How would you convince a Muslim that women could lead countries? Or that everyone is born equal? Or that Muslims who convert to Christianity should not be executed? As I said in my response above, I'm quite able to appeal to reality and argue that the values of the religion conflict with the "created order" (for lack of a better term), or the order of the universe. I really don't understand how you believe that's a dead end. Like the laws of nature, morality can be discovered.
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible).
It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
You've lost me on this. Isn't it true that the two facts you're dealing with are (1) unicorns don't exist and (2) you're hallucinating, and are seeing unicorns? I don't see these two propositions as exclusive of each other, or contradictory. Seeing a unicorn while hallucinating only means that you're hallucinating, and it remains true that unicorns don't exist. Seems like an equivocation of the word "fact," and a confusion - even if a lot of philosophers agree - on what comprises reality.
On May 05 2010 20:18 Gnosis wrote: Not at all Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say. Keep in mind that I would believe that God would have made morality an intrinsic part of the universe, so I'm quite able to say, "your morality doesn't reflect reality..." etc. Which means that regardless of one's views of morality, commonalities may (and indeed are) found among many people. And frankly, behaving morally is a lot more important to me than having the right belief about them.
I don't mean to hate, but if objective morality is really important to you, you should think about the following: (1) Your morality depends on the existence of a god, in the sense that should your god not exist you would not consider his moral laws objective or even valid. (2) This god could so far not be demonstrated other than by personal revelation and we found no impartial method that allows a detection. (3) It follows from (2) that the notion of a god is subjective in nature, since it cannot be seperated from the observer. In other words, there is no experiment which has a predicted outcome, where the prediction is derived from the existence of your god.
It follows from (1) and (3) that the basis of your morality is deeply subjective and therefore your morality itself is subjective in nature, as you cannot demonstrate it's validity to anybody else, who does not belief in your god in the first place. That is also why belief in a god is such a convenient way to justify varying, but absolute(!) morals in different cultures.
It seems to me that if you really have a problem with subjective morality than you would need to think of a different foundation to build on. Maybe you could try mine :-P
(1) That is correct, before I was a theist I was a nihilist. No god, no morality aside from what we make. (2) Red herring to the question of moral imperatives, at least for now. (3) Thus, irrelevant.
I think you're confused between a perception of a certain set of morals, and the existence of a certain set of morals. Consider that I could be a (1) theist, (2) couldn't demonstrate the existence of any god and (3) believed in absolute, objective morality. It does not follow from these three propositions that I therefore believe in a subjective morality, or that my morality is subjective in nature. It's quite possible that I believe in the moral set which is actually the case in reality, no matter how much I can't justify my position. Just as I could not demonstrate the validity of my moral code to others, it could not be demonstrated to me that my moral code is not objective, absolute, and corresponding to reality.
I already tried building a moral code on your beliefs, but it's impossible. I couldn't find any justification in the universe, and no amount of people agreeing with me changed that.
On May 05 2010 21:55 Gnosis wrote: As for how I would convince a Muslim that burqas are wrong, well, in and of themselves, are they? What moral law dictates that a woman should not wear a burqas, even if she wants to? How would you convince a Muslim that women could lead countries? Or that everyone is born equal? Or that Muslims who convert to Christianity should not be executed? As I said in my response above, I'm quite able to appeal to reality and argue that the values of the religion conflict with the "created order" (for lack of a better term), or the order of the universe. I really don't understand how you believe that's a dead end. Like the laws of nature, morality can be discovered.
We can pinpoint it here. I can say Islamic states who force women to wear burqas are morally wrong because: (1) Individual freedom is a value deduced from the observable fact that individual freedom of choice tends to lead to happiness as people have observable wants and needs, of which only they know in detail. (2) Happiness is good, since it is the observable preference of most beings to chose happiness over sadness. (3) Since people are fundamentally the same their happiness fundamentally counts the same, so restricting ones freedom needs to be justified with reaching more fulfillment of another observable value.
We can easily deduce from that, that we need to justify if we restrict freedom. So anybody who claims women have to wear burqas is required to give a testable explanation. "God says it" does not fly. If they claim that it undermines the stability of a society, they would need to provide a mean to test it. Until then let women freely decide what they want to wear.
And yes I know that my argument is way to short and can be tackled, but it is the fact that I have actually a mean to argue and be convincing, without appealing to a higher power that cannot be demonstrated.
On May 05 2010 22:15 MiraMax wrote: We can pinpoint it here. I can say Islamic states who force women to wear burqas are morally wrong because:
(1) Individual freedom is a value deduced from the observable fact that individual freedom of choice tends to lead to happiness as people have observable wants and needs, of which only they know in detail. (2) Happiness is good, since it is the observable preference of most beings to chose happiness over sadness. (3) Since people are fundamentally the same their happiness fundamentally counts the same, so restricting ones freedom needs to be justified with reaching more fulfillment of another observable value.
We can easily deduce from that, that we need to justify if we restrict freedom. So anybody who claims women have to wear burqas is required to give a testable explanation. "God says it" does not fly.
If they claim that it undermines the stability of a society, they would need to provide a mean to test it. Until then let women freely decide what they want to wear.
And yes I know that my argument is way to short and can be tackled, but it is the fact that I have actually a mean to argue and be convincing, without appealing to a higher power that cannot be demonstrated.
But that's the thing, as I understand what you're saying, you haven't demonstrated anything. Just because happiness is the "observable preference of most beings" doesn't mean it's actually good, as objectively distinct from bad, as things which are intrinsic to the universe, distinct from our perceptions. You fall into the error of subjectivism that you attempted to point out above: a moral code as inseparable from our perceptions (in fact your moral code is predicated and founded upon our perceptions!). Why is "individual freedom" good? Why is "happiness" good? Why should I maximize both? What is "good," and who decides? Otherwise all you're arguing for is a unique moral code, which is in some ways inverse to the Islamic world. What makes you right, and them wrong? What makes you seeing these things as good, mean that they are meaningfully good?
On May 05 2010 21:55 Gnosis wrote: You've lost me on this. Isn't it true that the two facts you're dealing with are (1) unicorns don't exist and (2) you're hallucinating, and are seeing unicorns? I don't see these two propositions as exclusive of each other, or contradictory. Seeing a unicorn while hallucinating only means that you're hallucinating, and it remains true that unicorns don't exist. Seems like an equivocation of the word "fact," and a confusion - even if a lot of philosophers agree - on what comprises reality.
There is no contradiction. Both are valid facts. "Objective" and "subjective" are words that relate to perception. All we see and reason with is perception, but something does not become factual just because it is objective!? And something is not not-factional because it is subjective. We suffer from the epistemic problem that we will never really know what is factual, even though we believe there are facts. Objective facts can be demonstrated, subjective facts not. This does't make subjective facts less factional, they just need to be believed.
I am really dazzled that so few people seem to know what subjective and objective means in a philosophical context.
On May 05 2010 21:55 Gnosis wrote: You've lost me on this. Isn't it true that the two facts you're dealing with are (1) unicorns don't exist and (2) you're hallucinating, and are seeing unicorns? I don't see these two propositions as exclusive of each other, or contradictory. Seeing a unicorn while hallucinating only means that you're hallucinating, and it remains true that unicorns don't exist. Seems like an equivocation of the word "fact," and a confusion - even if a lot of philosophers agree - on what comprises reality.
There is no contradiction. Both are valid facts. "Objective" and "subjective" are words that relate to perception. All we see and reason with is perception, but something does not become factual just because it is objective!? And something is not not-factional because it is subjective. We suffer from the epistemic problem that we will never really know what is factual, even though we believe there are facts. Objective facts can be demonstrated, subjective facts not. This does't make subjective facts less factional, they just need to be believed.
I am really dazzled that so few people seem to know what subjective and objective means in a philosophical context.
Well, I understand what you're saying this way. There is the fact that (1) unicorns don't exist, there is also the fact that (2) while hallucinating, I'm seeing a unicorn. One fact corresponds with reality (1), the other doesn't (2). I'm going to hazard a guess and say that when people in this thread refer to "objective" and "fact," they are referring to things which we perceive, but which correspond to some thing in reality (the "Ding an sich" is what I believe Kant called it). In other words, they adhere to a correspondence theory of truth. Seeing a unicorn corresponds to my hallucinating, but not to the unicorn existing as some ontologically distinct being in reality.
As for your epistemic problem, wouldn't it be true, then, that you know factually that we will never really know what is factual? (In other words, you know at least one state of affairs in the universe?) Or does this observation too fall to your criticism, and thus we can't know if it's true or not that we'll never really know what is factual (you'll have to excuse me, I'm on some medication which has a habit of making me a bit cheeky).
And I think I have to disagree, just because I believe in something doesn't make it a fact. I would be wrong in believing that unicorn's exist because I'm seeing one while hallucinating. I would be right in believing that I'm seeing a unicorn because I'm hallucinating.
I wouldn't be so "dazzled" that people don't know what subjective and objective mean in a philosophical context. Most people aren't taught philosophy (me included), so we make do with what we can, throwing out the commonsensical for the observations of an educated man behind a desk...
On May 05 2010 22:21 Gnosis wrote: But that's the thing, as I understand what you're saying, you haven't demonstrated anything. Just because happiness is the "observable preference of most beings" doesn't mean it's actually good, as objectively distinct from bad, as things which are intrinsic to the universe, distinct from our perceptions. You fall into the error of subjectivism that you attempted to point out above: a moral code as inseparable from our perceptions (in fact your moral code is predicated and founded upon our perceptions!). Why is "individual freedom" good? Why is "happiness" good? Why should I maximize both? What is "good," and who decides? Otherwise all you're arguing for is a unique moral code, which is in some ways inverse to the Islamic world. What makes you right, and them wrong? What makes you seeing these things as good, mean that they are meaningfully good?
But that's the thing! Just by saying that something is "big" you have not demonstrated anything! And how could you!? As I said "Good" and "Bad" are meaningless unless you put them in a context, just like "big" and "small". Everything is predicted and founded upon our perception! There is no way around it and how would there be? Who decides? Who decides what big is? Please tell me, what makes "big" different from "moral" or "good"?
I also explained what "makes me right" and I can demonstrate it. It is testable. Everything being equal people tend to prefer not suffering over suffering, it is a simple fact of reality and can be observed. Would we be living in a world where people would actually prefer to suffer, we would have a different conversation and different values. This is empirical fact, just like that people have needs and wants. And since I cannot know them all a priori I will need to justify whenever I take freedom away from them. This is a fundamental and important insight! All over a sudden the burden of proof shifts and for taking away freedom of choice from somebody, we need to have a justification (maybe that the freedom of others is inflicted). Basing the freedom of choice of clothing on gender is unjustified, as long as a demonstrable value is identified, which is actually furthered by that. As god is not demonstrable, it is thus not a valid reason. Can you provide any other justification? No? Conclusion: Unfounded, should therefore be abolished. That's how moral progress works!
On May 05 2010 22:41 Gnosis wrote: As for your epistemic problem, wouldn't it be true, then, that you know factually that we will never really know what is factual? (In other words, you know at least one state of affairs in the universe?) Or does this observation too fall to your criticism, and thus we can't know if it's true or not that we'll never really know what is factual (you'll have to excuse me, I'm on some medication which has a habit of making me a bit cheeky).
And I think I have to disagree, just because I believe in something doesn't make it a fact. I would be wrong in believing that unicorn's exist because I'm seeing one while hallucinating. I would be right in believing that I'm seeing a unicorn because I'm hallucinating.
I wouldn't be so "dazzled" that people don't know what subjective and objective mean in a philosophical context. Most people aren't taught philosophy (me included), so we make do with what we can, throwing on the commonsensical for the observations of an educated man behind a desk...
The question whether it is possible "to actually know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure" has been discussed to great length in philosphy and like most dilemmas it doesn't interest me that much, since the statement "I can not know for sure, that I can know something for sure, so not even whether this is true" has the same consequences. When I talk about the fact of "seeing a unicorn", it doesn't actually matter whether the unicorn is there, can exist, is known to not exist or whatever. When I "see a unicorn" I only know that my brain processed something which looked like a unicorn to me. I can deduce from that that the unicorn was there or that it was not there, but this is a different fact (apart from the fact that I "saw one"). The fact that a unicorn was somewhere, can potentially be objective, if it is accessible to impartial study (for instance if other people where there to verify my claim). The fact that I saw the unicorn, is not objective in the same sense unless you can look in my brain and the my "experience" of a unicorn might be completely inaccessible and intrinsically subjective. Both are facts though.
On May 05 2010 22:42 MiraMax wrote: But that's the thing! Just by saying that something is "big" you have not demonstrated anything! And how could you!?
As I said "Good" and "Bad" are meaningless unless you put them in a context, just like "big" and "small". Everything is predicted and founded upon our perception! There is no way around it and how would there be? Who decides? Who decides what big is? Please tell me, what makes "big" different from "moral" or "good"?
The difference is that big is subjective, moral and good are objective.
I also explained what "makes me right" and I can demonstrate it. It is testable. Everything being equal people tend to prefer not suffering over suffering, it is a simple fact of reality and can be observed. Would we be living in a world where people would actually prefer to suffer, we would have a different conversation and different values. This is empirical fact, just like that people have needs and wants.
I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. This tendency doesn't make an action "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong". In and of itself, this just means that people prefer certain things (happiness to sadness, prosperity over suffering). But do we always act on the tendencies of a person? No, we don't. If someone is made happy through the suffering of others, we don't allow that. I've never disagreed with you that you can build a moral code on the above precepts, what I've disagreed with is your notion that this constitutes an objective moral code--it doesn't. And while you can say "people prefer X and don't prefer Y," you still haven't shown how these preferences themselves correspond to something in reality, and thus you still haven't shown how these actions are moral or immoral, independent of us.
And since I cannot know them all a priori I will need to justify whenever I take freedom away from them. This is a fundamental and important insight! All over a sudden the burden of proof shifts and for taking away freedom of choice from somebody, we need to have a justification (maybe that the freedom of others is inflicted). Basing the freedom of choice on closing on gender is unjustified, as long as a demonstrable value is identified, which is actually furthered by that. As god is not demonstrable, it is thus not a valid reason. Can you provide any other justification? No? Conclusion: Unfounded, should therefore be abolished. That's how moral progress works!
That's not how progress is made. Progress is towards an "end" (which means at some point you've stopped progressing, because you've arrived). On a subjective level this is impossible, because there is no end to look forward to. You might try to arrive at the "best possible moral code," but different societies will have different conceptions of a "best possible moral code". Objectivism does allow this movement towards an end, because all people's of all times are bound to the same (progressing) moral code.
And again, I can easily believe that (1) moral imperatives come from god and (2) the actions of people reveal these moral imperatives. Essentially, the "proof" you use for how we should act is the same proof I can use. But that's not answer the question, of where moral imperatives come from. We're just addressing how people prefer to be treated (but is this preference actually meaningful?). I think you're oversimplifying the issue, and are having a bit of difficulty providing a foundation for your moral precepts.
On May 05 2010 22:54 MiraMax wrote: The question whether it is possible "to actually know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure" has been discussed to great length in philosphy and like most dilemmas it doesn't interest me that much, since the statement "I can not know for sure, that I can know something for sure, so not even whether this is true" has the same consequences.
It should interest you, especially if an observation insulates itself from the objection it launches against all other epistemic theories. The consequence may be the same, but it doesn't mean the approach is correct. Is it true, an objective fact, that we can never really know what the facts are? Then we have a problem, and philosophers need to stop knocking their heads together. Head aches make for bad philosophical assertions.
When I talk about the fact of "seeing a unicorn", it doesn't actually matter whether the unicorn is there, can exist, is known to not exist or whatever. When I "see a unicorn" I only know that my brain processed something which looked like a unicorn to me. I can deduce from that that the unicorn was there or that it was not there, but this is a different fact (apart from the fact that I "saw one"). The fact that a unicorn was somewhere, can potentially be objective, if it is accessible to impartial study (for instance if other people where there to verify my claim). The fact that I saw the unicorn, is not objective in the same sense unless you can look in my brain and the my "experience" of a unicorn might be completely inaccessible and intrinsically subjective. Both are facts though.
On May 05 2010 22:55 Gnosis wrote: The difference is that big is subjective, moral and good are objective.
Do you really think that the statement "this square is bigger than the other square" is subjective? In what way is it more subjective than "this action is better than the other action"? The former statement is much more specific and is indeed objective as we have devised a common understanding of the term bigger and even means to measure it impartially. Without this common understanding the term would be as meaningless as "better" or "moral" is.
That's not how progress is made. Progress is towards an "end" (which means at some point you've stopped progressing, because you've arrived). On a subjective level this is impossible, because there is no end to look forward to. You might try to arrive at the "best possible moral code," but different societies will have different conceptions of a "best possible moral code". Objectivism does allow this movement towards an end, because all people's of all times are bound to the same (progressing) moral code.
Moral progress means to me that we have developed a moral framework whose foundational values better match observations about our world. That's actually the only definition of progress I can fathom. Even if there is no "best moral code", this definition of progress is still applicable. There might be completely different moral frameworks which are all completely in line with what we can observe about reality, but so what!? We should strive for one of them and if we have found one, would still need to look for alternatives according to critical rationalism. Like always, the search is the goal.
And again, I can easily believe that (1) moral imperatives come from god and (2) the actions of people reveal these moral imperatives. Essentially, the "proof" you use for how we should act is the same proof I can use. But that's not answer the question, of where moral imperatives come from. We're just addressing how people prefer to be treated (but is this preference actually meaningful?). I think you're oversimplifying the issue, and are having a bit of difficulty providing a foundation for your moral precepts.
Keep in mind that I don't directly derive my foundation from actions of people. I derive it from existing elementary wants and needs which I deduce from their actions (subjective facts, eh). That's why individual freedom is so important in enlightened philosophy. You can very well believe that the "nature" of people and all things has been determined by a creator. And if you really look at this nature to determine what the creator wants to tell us about morality, we are actually doing the same thing! The irony for me is, that in this case you are essentially piggybacking on a naturalistic world view as all over a sudden you are also required to bring forth evidence in order to verify whether you got that nature right! And that's where we both started: either way, evidence rules!
On May 05 2010 23:45 MiraMax wrote: Do you really think that the statement "this square is bigger than the other square" is subjective? In what way is it more subjective than "this action is better than the other action"? The former statement is much more specific and is indeed objective as we have devised a common understanding of the term bigger and even means to measure it impartially. Without this common understanding the term would be as meaningless as "better" or "moral" is.
Of course not, that statement is objective. My point was that for morality to exist objectively it has to exist in and of itself. That it was true 13.5 billion years ago that the proposition "rape is wrong" was a morally meaningful phrase (even though no one could utter it), just as its true today. The size of a thing can only be measured in relation to another thing. Moral statements are true independent of moral agents giving them contexts.
Moral progress means to me that we have developed a moral framework whose foundational values better match observations about our world. That's actually the only definition of progress I can fathom. Even if there is no "best moral code", this definition of progress is still applicable. There might be completely different moral frameworks which are all completely in line with what we can observe about reality, but so what!? We should strive for one of them and if we have found one, would still need to look for alternatives according to critical rationalism. Like always, the search is the goal.
That's the issue, "our" world. How many different cultures have perceived "our" world differently? The Islamic "world" views burqas as morally required, you view them as immoral, because they restrict human freedom and happiness (apparently). This is what happens when you attempt different moral frame works which are "all in line"--some of them contradict, and then you have the task of trying to say, "no, this is wrong". But you can't, because it's all in your perception.
You understand that if the search is the goal, then you're searching nonsensically for the "moral code that best matches our observations about the world". You'll never find it, so you can't ever make progress. The "progress" we make will be undone by another society, at another time.
Keep in mind that I don't directly derive my foundation from actions of people. I derive it from existing elementary wants and needs which I deduce from their actions (subjective facts, eh). That's why individual freedom is so important in enlightened philosophy.
I'm keeping it in mind. My point is that you will attempt to impose your moral understanding on another when they disagree with your observations. Which leaves the question unanswered, and gives you no justification for imposing your moral order, or calling burqa imposing Muslims wrong.
You can very well believe that the "nature" of people and all things has been determined by a creator. And if you really look at this nature to determine what the creator wants to tell us about morality, we are actually doing the same thing!
The irony for me is, that in this case you are essentially piggybacking on a naturalistic world view as all over a sudden you are also required to bring forth evidence in order to verify whether you got that nature right! And that's where we both started: either way, evidence rules!
That's been my point There is much value in reason and in the natural world, I'm not some theist with a "pie in the sky" mentality. I would say that the tendency of people, as it seems to be true of all people in all cultures, is evidence of a higher moral order (even what you've been saying, quite adamantly). And even though we might disagree on what morality is or how we arrive at it, we can still all act in a moral way. And that's what I think is more important.
On May 06 2010 00:18 Gnosis wrote: That's the issue, "our" world. How many different cultures have perceived "our" world differently? The Islamic "world" views burqas as morally required, you view them as immoral, because they restrict human freedom and happiness (apparently). This is what happens when you attempt different moral frame works which are "all in line"--some of them contradict, and then you have the task of trying to say, "no, this is wrong". But you can't, because it's all in your perception.
You understand that if the search is the goal, then you're searching nonsensically for the "moral code that best matches our observations about the world". You'll never find it, so you can't ever make progress. The "progress" we make will be undone by another society, at another time.
No, that is flawed thinking. Just like Newtonian Physics will never be undone, even though we now know there are more accurate views of the world. That's the advantage of testable evidence. And if it was the case, then also according to your definition it could be made undone as soon people turn to other gods. They won't even need evidence for that, so where is the advantage?
I'm keeping it in mind. My point is that you will attempt to impose your moral understanding on another when they disagree with your observations. Which leaves the question unanswered, and gives you no justification for imposing your moral order, or calling burqa imposing Muslims wrong.
If somebody believed the earth was flat and you "impose your view" on him demonstrating that the earth is not flat you are doing the same thing. But that's the advantage of basing an argument on observable evidence. It cannot be refuted unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is all the justification you need or will ever have to impose any view on others.
That's been my point There is much value in reason and in the natural world, I'm not some theist with a "pie in the sky" mentality. I would say that the tendency of people, as it seems to be true of all people in all cultures, is evidence of a higher moral order (even what you've been saying, quite adamantly). And even though we might disagree on what morality is or how we arrive at it, we can still all act in a moral way. And that's what I think is more important.
I completely agree with your last two sentences here. And since I realize we are somewhat turning in circles, we have at least found something important to agree on! Just to make it clear, I think that the notion of a god is not necessary for a working moral system and that objectivity in morals can be reached the same way in principle, that it can be reached for any other concept. I understood now that you think there is a difference for the special concept of morality and that, if that is the case, a god is necessary for resolving this issue. I cannot think of anything more to add to my arguments, so I would like to thank you for the interesting discussion and your patience! Take care!
On May 06 2010 00:18 Gnosis wrote: That's the issue, "our" world. How many different cultures have perceived "our" world differently? The Islamic "world" views burqas as morally required, you view them as immoral, because they restrict human freedom and happiness (apparently). This is what happens when you attempt different moral frame works which are "all in line"--some of them contradict, and then you have the task of trying to say, "no, this is wrong". But you can't, because it's all in your perception.
You understand that if the search is the goal, then you're searching nonsensically for the "moral code that best matches our observations about the world". You'll never find it, so you can't ever make progress. The "progress" we make will be undone by another society, at another time.
No, that is flawed thinking. Just like Newtonian Physics will never be undone, even though we now know there are more accurate views of the world. That's the advantage of testable evidence. And if it was the case, then also according to your definition it could be made undone as soon people turn to other gods. They won't even need evidence for that, so where is the advantage?
I'm keeping it in mind. My point is that you will attempt to impose your moral understanding on another when they disagree with your observations. Which leaves the question unanswered, and gives you no justification for imposing your moral order, or calling burqa imposing Muslims wrong.
If somebody believed the earth was flat and you "impose your view" on him demonstrating that the earth is not flat you are doing the same thing. But that's the advantage of basing an argument on observable evidence. It cannot be refuted unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is all the justification you need or will ever have to impose any view on others.
That's been my point There is much value in reason and in the natural world, I'm not some theist with a "pie in the sky" mentality. I would say that the tendency of people, as it seems to be true of all people in all cultures, is evidence of a higher moral order (even what you've been saying, quite adamantly). And even though we might disagree on what morality is or how we arrive at it, we can still all act in a moral way. And that's what I think is more important.
I completely agree with your last two sentences here. And since I realize we are somewhat turning in circles, we have at least found something important to agree on! Just to make it clear, I think that the notion of a god is not necessary for a working moral system and that objectivity in morals can be reached the same way in principle, that it can be reached for any other concept. I understood now that you think there is a difference for the special concept of morality and that, if that is the case, a god is necessary for resolving this issue. I cannot think of anything more to add to my arguments, so I would like to thank you for the interesting discussion and your patience! Take care!
Agreed, a very pleasant conversation (and a rarity)
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
miramax, your argument about definitions is diverting and all, but here let side step it for a second and put this in a way that you won't have to inexplicably take issue with.
factual/non-factual = descriptions of reality objective/subjective = descriptions of statements
all the objective and subjective statements in the world have no influence whatsoever on facts. now you seem to indulge in this pleasant fantasy of some "we" out there carefully comparing and exchanging their objective statements in order to get to the bottom of things, at which point mankind will have an objective moral good that they can institutionalize and embrace all sexes, races, creeds, etc. etc. what a beautiful concept, etc. etc.
but what a silly idea really. even the one discipline (science) most invested in producing objective facts does not use the discourse about those facts in order to get at them. they use something call experiments. have fun designing an experiment about how to find morality.
you will say "but they have to engage this discourse lol! it's possibly inseparable from the facts omg!" not really they don't. there's a reason why scientists more and more evaluate one another's articles simply by ignoring the (typically poor) writing and looking instead at the data and figures
i mean the one thing you've got to hang on to is the reassurance that all these philistines out here don't even *gasp* understand the difference between objective and subjective. you are "dazzled." you might do better to reconcile yourself to the fact that there is no objectively correct way to use words and the fact that people will use them in ways that, oh my god, you don't happen to approve of is a linguistic inevitability.
but i'll admit it, it's a much easier argumentative strategy to shit bricks about how someone "doesn't know what a word means" (as if there is such a thing as a word, quaint idea) than to actually attempt to engage what they are trying to say in their unrefined, unphilosophical discourse.
On May 06 2010 02:25 tinman wrote: miramax, your argument about definitions is diverting and all, but here let side step it for a second and put this in a way that you won't have to inexplicably take issue with.
factual/non-factual = descriptions of reality objective/subjective = descriptions of statements
all the objective and subjective statements in the world have no influence whatsoever on facts. now you seem to indulge in this pleasant fantasy of some "we" out there carefully comparing and exchanging their objective statements in order to get to the bottom of things, at which point mankind will have an objective moral good that they can institutionalize and embrace all sexes, races, creeds, etc. etc. what a beautiful concept, etc. etc.
You completely misunderstood me it seems. I am not sure whether I am really so unclear or whether you just don't try. We agree that factual and objective is not the same. I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of anything and also don't think that we will ever live in lala land where everybody is happy. I do think that moral questions are real and can be objectivized in the same sense that size is real and can be objectivized. I can live with people who think differently.
but what a silly idea really. even the one discipline (science) most invested in producing objective facts does not use the discourse about those facts in order to get at them. they use something call experiments. have fun designing an experiment about how to find morality.
you will say "but they have to engage this discourse lol! it's possibly inseparable from the facts omg!" not really they don't. there's a reason why scientists more and more evaluate one another's articles simply by ignoring the (typically poor) writing and looking instead at the data and figures
An experiment is designed to objectivize a matter. Its only mean is bring it away from the subject (even though this is never fully possible). A major reason to do that is to reach agreement. If an experiment always has the predicted result irrespective of who does it, it convinces people. That's one of its main merits. And rightfully so, because agreement by many people makes individual mistakes less likely. It doesn't rule them out, it doesn't mean what we saw is actual fact. But it's the best we have imo.
i mean the one thing you've got to hang on to is the reassurance that all these philistines out here don't even *gasp* understand the difference between objective and subjective. you are "dazzled." you might do better to reconcile yourself to the fact that there is no objectively correct way to use words and the fact that people will use them in ways that, oh my god, you don't happen to approve of is a linguistic inevitability.
but i'll admit it, it's a much easier argumentative strategy to shit bricks about how someone "doesn't know what a word means" (as if there is such a thing as a word, quaint idea) than to actually attempt to engage what they are trying to say in their unrefined, unphilosophical discourse.
Yes, there is no correct way to use any word. Nonetheless people often seem to understand each other. Fascinating, isn't it? I didn't mean to "shit any brick". I was just fascinated by how you constantly use insults to bring about a point, so I thought I try it too. Didn't work out well, it seems ... maybe we can all learn from that.
tinman at first I thought you were an asshole but ur actually pretty cool No troll
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
The only way I can see that you could possibly demonstrate what you think is when science gets to such a point where every brain synapse is traceable and it can be demonstrated what people are thinking when those observable synapses occur (but even then it would be debatable if it would be objective an accurate depiction of the subjective since science would still have trouble defining a conscience where subjective thoughts occur)
o yea, and I hate the word "we" too, I use it sparingly
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
On May 06 2010 02:57 tinman wrote: here's the only word you're using that i still don't understand: we.
What I mean with "we" depends on the context in which I use it. It can mean "we" as mankind, "we" as long as we are intellectually able to process rationally, or just us two. I will try to avoid using the term we if it confuses you.
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean? I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
What does a determinist like yourself believe, anyway? Do you believe that the whole of reality is "determined," including your thoughts, beliefs, personal expressions, etc. Or do you believe that these things aren't determined?
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
What does a determinist like yourself believe, anyway? Do you believe that the whole of reality is "determined," including your thoughts, beliefs, personal expressions, etc. Or do you believe that these things aren't determined?
everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know.
However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism.
Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k?
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that?
As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false.
"Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it?
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
What does a determinist like yourself believe, anyway? Do you believe that the whole of reality is "determined," including your thoughts, beliefs, personal expressions, etc. Or do you believe that these things aren't determined?
everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know.
However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism.
Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k?
You must have had some poor experiences in the past with my question. You can be "cute" if you want, I'm not going to call you "emo" (why I would in the first place, I do not know). I take it then that you're a compatibilist of some form, that's fine. I really don't have the desire to get into a discussion of causal determination, or even our moral responsibility within a compatibilist framework (that would be for another thread). I'm certainly not a compatibilist myself, though feel it would be silly for me to deny that all choices are influenced in the very least (and so I think in this sense it could be said that they are "determined").
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
What does a determinist like yourself believe, anyway? Do you believe that the whole of reality is "determined," including your thoughts, beliefs, personal expressions, etc. Or do you believe that these things aren't determined?
everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know.
However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism.
Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k?
You must have had some poor experiences in the past with my question. You can be "cute" if you want, I'm not going to call you "emo" (why I would in the first place, I do not know). I take it then that you're a compatibilist of some form, that's fine. I really don't have the desire to get into a discussion of causal determination, or even our moral responsibility within a compatibilist framework (that would be for another thread). I'm certainly not a compatibilist myself, though feel it would be silly for me to deny that all choices are influenced in the very least (and so I think in this sense it could be said that they are "determined").
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it?
If it is true that chocolate is good to you, then it obviously is true for me as well that chocolate is good to you. Why wouldn't it be?
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote: Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
What does a determinist like yourself believe, anyway? Do you believe that the whole of reality is "determined," including your thoughts, beliefs, personal expressions, etc. Or do you believe that these things aren't determined?
everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know.
However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism.
Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k?
You must have had some poor experiences in the past with my question. You can be "cute" if you want, I'm not going to call you "emo" (why I would in the first place, I do not know). I take it then that you're a compatibilist of some form, that's fine. I really don't have the desire to get into a discussion of causal determination, or even our moral responsibility within a compatibilist framework (that would be for another thread). I'm certainly not a compatibilist myself, though feel it would be silly for me to deny that all choices are influenced in the very least (and so I think in this sense it could be said that they are "determined").
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it?
If it is true that chocolate is good to you, then it obviously is true for me as well that chocolate is good to you. Why wouldn't it be?
I don't follow. Unless you mean good like, for my health?
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it?
If it is true that chocolate is good to you, then it obviously is true for me as well that chocolate is good to you. Why wouldn't it be?
I don't follow. Unless you mean good like, for my health?
I actually meant the taste, but it was just an example. Good can mean chicken here and what I said would still be true.
How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote: How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote: How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there.
Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims.
If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote: How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there.
Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims.
If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post.
But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths.
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote: How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there.
Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims.
If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post.
But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths.
Ok I see what you mean now.
I don't know if I made the same mistake that I'm about to imply you did (I might have) but it would do us good if we separated objectively true to subjectively true. Me liking chocolate is subjectively true, because it depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. It can't become part of reality just by me wishing it so, and because it is not part of reality, it cannot be objectively true. objective truths are true statements on reality subjective truths are true statements on a subject's conscience, preference, experience how bout that. conflating the two types just makes it unnecessarily confusing imo, and just a matter of semantics really
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote: How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there.
Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims.
If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post.
But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths.
Ok I see what you mean now.
I don't know if I made the same mistake that I'm about to imply you did (I might have) but it would do us good if we separated objectively true to subjectively true. Me liking chocolate is subjectively true, because it depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. It can't become part of reality just by me wishing it so, and because it is not part of reality, it cannot be objectively true. objective truths are true statements on reality subjective truths are true statements on a subject's conscience, preference, experience how bout that. conflating the two types just makes it unnecessarily confusing imo, and just a matter of semantics really
I'm not really sure what mistake you think I made.
My playing football depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. I also have a feeling that you're using 'reality' to mean something like the world outside ourselves instead of what is actually real (it is real that I like chocolate). I'm not really sure if you disagree or are just trying to reason why we still should use the term subjective truth.
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote: How do you know if it tastes good for me? I could be lying, I could be delusional You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there.
Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims.
If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post.
But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths.
Ok I see what you mean now.
I don't know if I made the same mistake that I'm about to imply you did (I might have) but it would do us good if we separated objectively true to subjectively true. Me liking chocolate is subjectively true, because it depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. It can't become part of reality just by me wishing it so, and because it is not part of reality, it cannot be objectively true. objective truths are true statements on reality subjective truths are true statements on a subject's conscience, preference, experience how bout that. conflating the two types just makes it unnecessarily confusing imo, and just a matter of semantics really
I'm not really sure what mistake you think I made.
My playing football depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. I also have a feeling that you're using 'reality' to mean something like the world outside ourselves instead of what is actually real (it is real that I like chocolate). I'm not really sure if you disagree or are just trying to reason why we still should use the term subjective truth.
Look, it may be true that you like chocolate, and I can say that it is true that I like chocolate, OK, I conceded that, but my point is that these truths are verifiable only to ourselves, and that's why I think it's worth to put them on a separate category of truths.
And your mistake I implied to be that you did not separate them, you're conflating objective truths (statements on the world that have been verified to be true) with subjective truths (statements on your mind that can only be verified and have been verified to be true by you)
but whatever maybe I'm the one being a semantical dick this time.
Of course I am conflating them because there is only one way for something to be true. This is not a mistake. Now, I suppose you can use the distinction if you wish, but make sure you explain how you use the terms because a lot of people will point out what I just did (that all truths are objective).
if by objective you mean "existing as an object in reality" then explain or demonstrate to me how can a subjective truth exist in reality
I don't know man, do you call tautologies objective truths too? It's just a weird use of the word truth when there's no discernment
no, bad example, meh I'm confused. whatever.
ok, it is semantics. simply said, I don't believe your nor mine liking to chocolate to be an object in the real world and therefore, it can't be an objective truth but you don't have that same definition of truth since you say all truths are objective, and I don't even know what objective means in yours.
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that?
As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false.
"Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that?
I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there.
In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced.
It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you?
Those are some nice videos. "Open-mindedness" one reminded me of my psyhological portrait at Keirsey.com:
Architects (INTP) regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many
On May 06 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote: if by objective you mean "existing as an object in reality" then explain or demonstrate to me how can a subjective truth exist in reality
I don't know man, do you call tautologies objective truths too? It's just a weird use of the word truth when there's no discernment
no, bad example, meh I'm confused. whatever.
ok, it is semantics. simply said, I don't believe your nor mine liking to chocolate to be an object in the real world and therefore, it can't be an objective truth but you don't have that same definition of truth since you say all truths are objective, and I don't even know what objective means in yours.
I don't like word wars though so whatever.
I don't really understand why you are wondering about tautologies. I am me. It's obviously an objective truth.
And by objective truth I mean something like true universally. As in, it's truth value is not dependent on the subjects. (Except in the way that if I don't kick a football, then it is not true that I kicked a football.)
My definition of truth: "X" is true, if, and only if, X
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that?
As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false.
"Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that?
I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there.
In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced.
It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you?
If it is true for me that chocolate tastes good to me, can it be false to you that chocolate tastes good to me?
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that?
As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false.
"Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that?
I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there.
In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced.
It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you?
If it is true for me that chocolate tastes good to me, can it be false to you that chocolate tastes good to me?
It can't be!! And that is exactly the point I am trying to explain. In philosophy a subjective fact is not referring to a fact which is "only" true for you or me, but a fact whose ontological or epistemical property is contingent on a single mind!! That X is true if and only if X is the case, is a statement about factuality, not objectivity.
You can say you don't like this use of subjective/objective or that you want to use the words differently and that's all fine with me. It is however a fixed term in philosophy which describes an important distinction. I am just pointing out that there is a difference whether the truth value of a statement about a fact can be determined by "objective means" or not and that this difference is not absolute, but gradual. Some states of affairs can be objectivized. I think the questions of morality are among them.
Oh shit, someone pulled out the principle of non-contradiction.
Have you guys ever had the experience of running into someone who says that they are really good at starcraft...and then they explain to you how they love to build a fleet of 12 battle cruisers and then smash the enemy? That is what professional philosophers would think of this silly thread. That's my guess at least.
Anyhow, I've done a lot of work on the PNC. If you get your kicks via argument then you should study the PNC because it is a extremely strong argument.
See: Aristotle, Metaphysics IV
Lukasiewicz? Pssshhh. Oh, what, G Priest and his dialethiests? Baha! I don't fear dialethiests! That's because Priest and cohorts rely on a dialectical rule which presupposes the PNC -- they disallow arguments that beg the question.
Anyways, that's just my take. See professional philosophers?
Well, you can see M. Wedin (Wedin has offered pretty much the most in depth defense of PNC in recent years) if you have access to philosophy journals or, if you want a "light" version of what Wedin argues, you can read This.
On May 03 2010 22:58 Biochemist wrote: but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
Ignorance is bliss.
The fact that you can develop a personal relationship with something that doesn't exist and if it does is ultimately uncontactable is ludicrous. I am sorry but it is.
Believe in a god if you want, looking at the universe I sometimes tend to think there might be some higher power that created the universe.. but I certainly don't know it's name, It's certainly not one of the gods as described in any of the religions on this planet and I certainly don't have a personal relationship with it LOL.
If people claimed to have a personal relationship with any non existent/non contactable creature outwith the realms of religion they would be sectioned and qaurantined. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
Out of my own curiority, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism? (If in your mind you have..)
On May 06 2010 21:46 XeliN wrote: Out of my own curiority, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism? (If in your mind you have..)
Just think about why you believe in "objective size". And then try to reason why the same process which mankind has gone through to establish the concept of an "objective size" should not apply to morality.
If you say "Cube A is bigger than cube B in terms of its volume" and I say: "No, that's not the case.", how do you try to convince me? If I say: "Well, your definition of volume is flawed because not only do you need to take the third power of its side length, but you need to add its god given aura to your result to get the true size." How do you respond to me? Do you ask: "Well, how do I determine its aura?" I say: "You get the answer from your built-in sense of aura implanted in you by the creator. You just need to sincerely listen and let god into your heart." Do you try to prove me wrong? Maybe you can convince me, that your concept of volume has at least some merit, but how? Remember, I could be right about the "real" volume of things and you could be wrong! Or not?
On May 06 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote: if by objective you mean "existing as an object in reality" then explain or demonstrate to me how can a subjective truth exist in reality
I don't know man, do you call tautologies objective truths too? It's just a weird use of the word truth when there's no discernment
no, bad example, meh I'm confused. whatever.
ok, it is semantics. simply said, I don't believe your nor mine liking to chocolate to be an object in the real world and therefore, it can't be an objective truth but you don't have that same definition of truth since you say all truths are objective, and I don't even know what objective means in yours.
I don't like word wars though so whatever.
If you can pin-point the neurons inside your brain that trigger and are related in everyway to your association to chocolate, would you then say it is objective? I don't particularly spend a lot of time trying to distinguish where the line is drawn for what i would call subjective objectivity. We are naught but slaves to our chemicals and the brutal reflections of light and other stimuli.
and as for Xelin: I don't think there is anything inherintly bad about nihilism, It's a perfectly legit line of thought in my book and doesn't really need to be "escaped"
However for me, Nihilism is somewhat like Atheist. I still feel like i'm making assumptions that aren't totally justified. Which ironically is a large reason a lot of people become atheists or nihilists.
With Atheism the assumption I don't like is that there is -not- a god, which is not something I could know, Hence the solution would be agnosticism.
With Nihilism the assumption is that there is No meaning or value in the universe. This I think is a bit too much. The solution for me, is, Absurdism. Which states that there may or may not be meaning or value in the universe. A lot of people don't like this because it seems like fence sitting to them. It's all about how are you programmed, for a lot of brains they would rather have conviction and be wrong than to lack conviction.
I'm missing how that is a response to how I posted, had to read it a few times but you are pointing out the fact that just because something cannot be dissproved doesn't make it a valid position to hold?
I wasn't asking that in anycase, but mayb I have misinterpreted your post and I will go back to studying it ^^
Did you not know that you already believed in objective size! And that "mankind" has already gone through a "process" to "establish that concept" that can easily be applied to questions of right and wrong? All you do is multiply the height of the ethical dilemma by the width of its ecological ramifications by the length of the lengths to which you have to go to give a shit about it.
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that?
As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false.
"Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that?
I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there.
In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced.
It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you?
If it is true for me that chocolate tastes good to me, can it be false to you that chocolate tastes good to me?
It can't be!! And that is exactly the point I am trying to explain. In philosophy a subjective fact is not referring to a fact which is "only" true for you or me, but a fact whose ontological or epistemical property is contingent on a single mind!! That X is true if and only if X is the case, is a statement about factuality, not objectivity.
You can say you don't like this use of subjective/objective or that you want to use the words differently and that's all fine with me. It is however a fixed term in philosophy which describes an important distinction. I am just pointing out that there is a difference whether the truth value of a statement about a fact can be determined by "objective means" or not and that this difference is not absolute, but gradual. Some states of affairs can be objectivized. I think the questions of morality are among them.
But I already explained in what sense I (and I'm sure Tinman) talk about subjective facts and that there are indeed subjective facts when used in certain sense.
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.
Did you not know that you already believed in objective size! And that "mankind" has already gone through a "process" to "establish that concept" that can easily be applied to questions of right and wrong? All you do is multiply the height of the ethical dilemma by the width of its ecological ramifications by the length of the lengths to which you have to go to give a shit about it.
Ta-da! Objective morality in units-cubed!
Of course, I forgot. Size is and always was intrinsically objective and not just a concept we designed which merely points to something in reality that demonstrably exists. It would be not possible to define size any other way and it could not just be laden with any meta-physical baggage, just because size is size. Morality instead is something completely different which is intrinsically neither objective nor subjective, but of course also just is what it is.Thanks for enlightening me.
On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote: Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.
Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality?
In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion")
no mira my man you're arguing in the wrong direction.
all of our thoughts about size just amount to strategies of description. i got no clue where you get the idea that our attempts to describe something quote unquote objectivizes it. nor do i have any clue what that could possibly mean.
size is just a word, dude. it doesn't "demonstrably exist."
(unless of course we're talking about my dick which is objectively tremendous).
On May 06 2010 22:31 tinman wrote: no mira my man you're arguing in the wrong direction.
all of our thoughts about size just amount to strategies of description. i got no clue where you get the idea that our attempts to describe something quote unquote objectivizes it. nor do i have any clue what that could possibly mean.
size is just a word, dude. it doesn't "demonstrably exist."
(unless of course we're talking about my dick which is objectively tremendous).
Maybe you should stop watching your dick for a moment and just read my post again. I exactly said that size is "just" a concept (yes, concepts are also words) and only what it "POINTS TO" exists in reality.
I don't get why you don't get where "i got this from", but maybe if you would just read any contemporary book about epistemology or ontology by any philosopher or consult an encyclopedy of philosophy (for instance here) or just use your brain to think when and why you call something objective, you would probably understand. That is, if your brain can keep up at least a bit with the size of your dick of course. Cheers!
wait what?... that's your coup-de-grace moment? that size is of course just a word, but that what it refers to "exists in reality."
no. sorry homeslice, but size doesn't really exist at all, in any sense. and the word does not truly refer to anything. it's an easy mistake to make, admittedly, assigning to words this magical property of pointing. so i don't really count that one as a strike against your vast powers of philosophicalization.
On May 06 2010 22:57 tinman wrote: wait what?... that's your coup-de-grace moment? that size is of course just a word, but that what it refers to "exists in reality."
no. sorry homeslice, but size doesn't really exist at all, in any sense. and the word does not truly refer to anything. it's an easy mistake to make, admittedly, assigning to words this magical property of pointing. so i don't really count that one as a strike against your vast powers of philosophicalization.
My coup-de-grace is actually my assertion that your dick is very small, based on the observation that people who brag about their dick size usually have something to hide. I could be wrong though (that critical thinking thing, you know). If you think words don't exist, then fine! Exactly how are you using them then to write? Have fun riddling with this and take care.
Edit: And yes, I just pwned you. I just wanted to clarify that for you.
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
don't worry homeskillet. it's not unusual for people to get crabby when they suddenly realize that language is nothing more or less than an elaborate series of grunts and gestures.
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
whoa whoa whoa there trigger.
see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.
in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.
that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.
I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
whoa whoa whoa there trigger.
see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.
in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
I find this interesting. As Such:
Is it not a bit of an assumption to say that a monkey flinging shit isn't referring to something?
Isn't language as it is ad hoc still in reference to something? albiet indirectly?
Somewhat like saying that it's not possible to be objective, but an objective truth exists, it's just not possible to know, perceive, or understand it.
I agree w/ what your saying definitely, but this subject is largely foreign to me
edit: it almost feels like your saying that it isn't possible to -truly- refer to anything. Would this be the case?
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.
that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.
I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
whoa whoa whoa there trigger.
see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.
in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
If questions get you this excited, just imagine if I had made assertions
Are you saying that words "do not refer to anything" or that words "do not truly refer to anything"? There is that one word - "truly" - that is missing, I'm wondering if that's significant. You see, if words "do not refer to anything," then they really do not and our discussion seems rather absurd (actually I think this would be a self-defeating position). If words do not truly refer to anything, then I can see how this means that words refer to things in reality as we perceive them, but not as they actually are. Conversation is still possible, though again, verges on the absurd. If you are not truly referring to anything, then your position, that language doesn't truly refer to anything, is not actually true (or we could not know it to be true). I don't see how this is avoidable unless you have some sort of linguistic gymnastics up your sleeve, or I'm misunderstanding you.
I asked you about the difference between words and terms, because as I understand it, a "word" is an arbitrary set of intonations (among other things) which attempt to communicate something true about the world. A "term" is some thing that actually exists in reality. There might be 13 different words for "tree," but they all refer to the same term (i.e. trees). So language does, in fact, refer to things (truly refers to things).
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote: mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.
that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.
I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?
hahahaha, yeah dawg stop by for drinks anytime.
Aaaaawwwwwlright! Keep it up, bro' and peace out!
<pounds chest with fist twice, then gives peace sign>
i am saying that people, by the strategical recruitment of words, attempt to refer to things. but there is no magical property of words that makes them different from any other attempt in the natural world to communicate something.
dearest gnossis,
all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.
personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
On May 06 2010 23:49 tinman wrote: dearest motiva,
i am saying that people, by the strategical recruitment of words, attempt to refer to things. but there is no magical property of words that makes them different from any other attempt in the natural world to communicate something.
dearest gnossis,
all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.
personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
On May 06 2010 23:49 tinman wrote: dearest gnossis,
all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.
personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
Gnosis* but that's okay And interestingly enough, a name I've only used here.
If you admit the contradiction, then simply, you aren't describing anything, so what are you talking about? Not even your contradiction exists, so the general may as well leave the battlefield. Thus I find it curious that you admit the contradiction at all. One other thing...
...From correspondence theory to divine truth, quite the jump you've made (I believe I only referred to the former). I'm a theist yes, a gnostic, no. I might have been, if I felt the need to insulate myself against all reason and critique. Or I might have simply chosen to believe in true contradictions
If the contradiction is inherent, then the system is destroyed, ifj hafw elfoid jvhoa wietl dotih eyad e
On May 07 2010 00:13 tinman wrote: well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.
There is still a reason behind the fling But it's okay, I see nothing more than sophism.
On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote: Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.
Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality?
In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion")
If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies....
“ Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance. ”
I kinda threw "Objective Morality" out there, but essentially I meant that there is a standard of right and wrong, that is objectively true and that morality is not simply the arbitrary leanings of society.
As far as I can tell Absurdism does not really solve the problem. I am assuming as you said that Absurdism is that it is not possible to know whether there is inherent meaning in our lives and the universe.
However, I do not think Absurdism "solves" it as, it leaves itself with two possibilites.
1) There is inherent meaning in the universe, an objective form of morality e.t.c
2) There is no such inherent meaning, moral objectivity e.t.c
Absurdism seems to sit between these two as the position is that either could correct we just cannot know.
However it seems to be the case that one of the positions is true and one not, and so my question is IF 2) is the case, then is Nihilism the only logical conclusion? or is the only way you avoid Nihilism by resting on the possibility of 1)?
On May 07 2010 00:13 tinman wrote: well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.
There is still a reason behind the fling But it's okay, I see nothing more than sophism.
of course monkies fling shit for a reason. that doesn't make their shit-fling a "system" that "operates." people use language (like i have been saying) to describe. that's the reason. but language doesn't suddenly become a system with the property of accurately corresponding to reality via the wizardly intercession of words.
On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote: Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.
Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality?
In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion")
If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies....
“ Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance. ”
I kinda threw "Objective Morality" out there, but essentially I meant that there is a standard of right and wrong, that is objectively true and that morality is not simply the arbitrary leanings of society.
As far as I can tell Absurdism does not really solve the problem. I am assuming as you said that Absurdism is that it is not possible to know whether there is inherent meaning in our lives and the universe.
However, I do not think Absurdism "solves" it as, it leaves itself with two possibilites.
1) There is inherent meaning in the universe, an objective form of morality e.t.c
2) There is no such inherent meaning, moral objectivity e.t.c
Absurdism seems to sit between these two as the position is that either could correct we just cannot know.
However it seems to be the case that one of the positions is true and one not, and so my question is IF 2) is the case, then is Nihilism the only logical conclusion? or is the only way you avoid Nihilism by resting on the possibility of 1)?
Well, If logic was the king and that's how human's acted, I personally, I would say probably so.
However, no human will ever possess the ability to be a true nihilist, or at the least you won't ever meet anyone that does. rofl Obviously any true nihilist would snap suicide.
Given the lack of an objective form of morality, or any attainable greater truth, or any meaning or value in life or the universe. There are a few solutions. I'm not totally sure a solution is necessary.
The first, would be Nihilism, which would be suicide. The second would be Theism, which is too much like nihilism for me. Or you can sit on the fence, and admit to yourself that you're a human being, you're a slave to subjectivity and life is your career. Life is in itself, and you'll most likely be dead soon anyway (soon relative to the universe at the least), might as well milk it's for what it's worth even if you can acknowledge the vanity.
I dunno, this is how i perceive these things, I'm certainly not an expert.
Out of my own curiosity, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism?
If I think something is meaningful, it is. And while thats not objectively meaningful, its doesn't matter what type of meaningful it is for life to be worth living.
We are born into a struggle to avoid pain. Only once the struggle subsides do we worry about whether its meaningful.
I think the first sign of self-aware AI will be suicide.
Out of my own curiosity, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism?
If I think something is meaningful, it is. And while thats not objectively meaningful, its doesn't matter what type of meaningful it is for life to be worth living.
We are born into a struggle to avoid pain. Only once the struggle subsides do we worry about whether its meaningful.
I think the first sign of self-aware AI will be suicide.
If we are born into a struggle to avoid pain, how does the "search" become meaningful when the end is death (pain)?
On May 07 2010 02:20 tinman wrote: gnosis i want you to know that i do sincerely like you. you and your benighted religious ways!
Oh, that damned religion of mine! If only I could break out of the middle ages and breathe the air of Enlightenment But seriously, I do enjoy your posts.
On May 06 2010 21:46 XeliN wrote: Out of my own curiority, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism? (If in your mind you have..)
make up your own shit works 4 me
think about it, if god doesn't exist, and humanity was able to contrive the craziest moral codes on the illusion that it did, god didn't make those codes at all, did it. No, it was man, and thats evidence that man is perfectly able to guide itself for its own goals (duh should be obvious)
If we are born into a struggle to avoid pain, how does the "search" become meaningful when the end is death (pain)?
How is it meaningful to avoid pain... You avoided pain, thats it, thats your motivation.
I don't know if my PM answered your question, but what I mean is that death is a pain in itself, actually, the final pain. So ultimately, we all fail.
What if someone is born with a neurological defect that prevents him from ever feeling any pain? And masochists? Do they win instead?
Depends what is meant by pain, i.e. physical, emotional, etc. To clarify my comment above, I only ask (he may not define death as pain) to see if it's the same thought process that would have led to Camus' declaration that suicide is the (most basic?) philosophical question .
Couldn't you guys take it to the PM? This thread got ridiculously boring and seriously off topic...
And how on earth would suicide become the most basic philosophical question? That would be a "What is?" in my book, from there it's a very long way to get to questions about suicide...
On May 07 2010 09:41 Manit0u wrote: Couldn't you guys take it to the PM? This thread got ridiculously boring and seriously off topic...
And how on earth would suicide become the most basic philosophical question? That would be a "What is?" in my book, from there it's a very long way to get to questions about suicide...
Camus saw existence as absurd, a universe ultimately lacking meaning. So for him the first and most basic question was "should I, or should I not, commit suicide?" If we choose not to commit suicide, thereby choosing to cope with an absurd existence, then we must entertain all other questions.
its like a mix of a macintosh steven hawking and pbs.... stopped halfway through about wanting to kill myself from the robotic speech impedaming this guy has
I don't know if my PM answered your question, but what I mean is that death is a pain in itself, actually, the final pain. So ultimately, we all fail.
Indeed It is not whether we win or lose in an ultimate sense, but that the daily trials give us reason to keep living.
From a quick internet search I think I do agree with Camus' take on Sisyphus. But I'm so poorly read I can't be sure.
You might, from the sounds of things. Give the book a read if you have the opportunity, it would probably interest you (take a look at Sartre while you're at it) and help you develop your philosophy a little more. Personally it's not a belief I could hold, I'd always be looking at end (death) and wondering why the daily trials even matter, why living even matters. But, apparently this thread has gotten boring, so I'll keep my comments there.
I don't know if my PM answered your question, but what I mean is that death is a pain in itself, actually, the final pain. So ultimately, we all fail.
Indeed It is not whether we win or lose in an ultimate sense, but that the daily trials give us reason to keep living.
From a quick internet search I think I do agree with Camus' take on Sisyphus. But I'm so poorly read I can't be sure.
Camus seems like he should be in favor of suicide (or at least heavy intoxication). He claims that the only response to the absurd (his term for nihilism) is to try not to think about it. Which just seems like a weak philosophy all around.
I don't know if my PM answered your question, but what I mean is that death is a pain in itself, actually, the final pain. So ultimately, we all fail.
Indeed It is not whether we win or lose in an ultimate sense, but that the daily trials give us reason to keep living.
From a quick internet search I think I do agree with Camus' take on Sisyphus. But I'm so poorly read I can't be sure.
Camus seems like he should be in favor of suicide (or at least heavy intoxication). He claims that the only response to the absurd (his term for nihilism) is to try not to think about it. Which just seems like a weak philosophy all around.
Choice three (in Camus’ view the only authentic and valid solution) is simply to accept absurdity, or better yet to embrace it, and to continue living. Since the absurd in his view is an unavoidable, indeed defining, characteristic of the human condition, the only proper response to it is full, unflinching, courageous acceptance. Life, he says, can “be lived all the better if it has no meaning.”
Choice three (in Camus’ view the only authentic and valid solution) is simply to accept absurdity, or better yet to embrace it, and to continue living. Since the absurd in his view is an unavoidable, indeed defining, characteristic of the human condition, the only proper response to it is full, unflinching, courageous acceptance. Life, he says, can “be lived all the better if it has no meaning.”
Doesn't that seem lacking to you? Any form of "acceptance" would mean suicide. If someone lives their life, they will have things that have value to them, so it's impossible to embrace the Absurd (without acting crazy, that is).
inamn said " i also kind of enjoy violence, oppression, and intolerance " as well as several other posts
in which xelin replies quite appropriately "And you seem to be trying to force people into the position of arguing objectively whilst maintaining for yourself the luxury of subjectivity."
first of all i do not know where the apparent hostility comes from toward the video as author but it is easily percieved.. he never claimed to have made an undergraduate level treatise on the subject , just a video titles critical thinking .. and with the amount of time he used i thought he did a decent job presenting the ideas concisely . but that is only my opinion... to move on to your above listed quote , somehow tinman i think you would like these things alot less if they were being done to you with hateful ferver .. maybe you meant in an artistic sense ( macabre art)but you really did not clarify which leads me to believe it was more rhetoric than anything else. From the a basic standpoint all form of moral systems realizes within themselves an EPISTEMOLOGICAL flaw when using using logic or experimentation to find results or make assumptions based on predicted results however the dogma that arises in both academic and especially pyrrhonian skeptics is amusing , ... if we can know nothing at all than how can you know to make that statement ?....objective morality instead relates morality to a set of basic human needs that have already been established,, example if you do not eat you die .. the basic model being humanistic psychological values like maslow's heirarchy of needs , while the skeptic's flaw lies in the fact that it ignores causality. i.e actions have consequence in the real world.. the skeptics model has no context it is like a controlled laboratory trying to claim naturalistic observation reliably ......denying objective assertions are based more rhetoric than reality and not very useful in everyday life..... of course just because something is practical does not make it true.. but in the instance of contextuality , objectiveness as a musician is very appealing to myself . When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place with in a related context. This context is needed to evaluate the consequences of an action, because it informs the values that are effected by the action . the difference between naturalistic and controlled experiment .( like examining a melodies harmonic value compared to chords in music theory ... you need the chords to relate the harmonic value) To take a simple example, the action of “killing” effects very different values in context as previously implied in this thread.. although the question was never really expanded upon. the skeptic has an interesting view that objectives assume a large universal truth of common ground however is it really that far fetched when we are part of the same species ?.. of course a skeptic might reply evolution is the vehicle for this transmitter of universality and nothing more.. the fuzzy logic in moral skepticism specifically the afore mentioned type is very humorous . one can know temporal moral substance but not moral knowledge ?however it is based on an enlightening semantic . knowledge, justified belief .. skepticism about moral truth-value at least allows some room for compatibility( not going to get into practical skepticism) one interesting type of logic that holds interestingly enough 1 moral claims may be true, even if we cannot know or have justified beliefs about which ones are true. 2 However, a implied reverse implication seems to hold: If knowledge implies truth, and if moral claims are never true, then there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong morally
however one big flaw i find in all forms of moral skepticism is the fallacy that if moral assertions have no realized or examined truth-value, then it is hard to see how they can fit into truth-functional contexts, such as negation, disjunction, contradiction , and conditionals. the contexts are also extremely unassertive and describe very little in way of assumption, thus cannot yield experimental results .
when dealing with morality and its flaws theist attempt to dodge through divine communication and altruistic forces or spiritual needs, but skeptics ignore it altogether using evolution as the mechanism , i probably lie somewhere in between in the subset of moral relativity ... although i am an atheist i am not a through and through skeptic morally speaking.. certain humanistic aspects appeal to me biologically speaking....
to say no objective realities can be deduced is denying simple formal logic and basic mathematics ethics and morality is not comparable to denying governing dynamics in nature, while religion does attempt to make the two synonymous
btw i did not find the vid religion bashing , religious philosophies do that all on their own
It is difficult to have a discussion when the topic is all over the place. This started out as a couple of videos on youtube on critical thinking. If it were not for the specific examples (and the somewhat negative appearance of religion in it), this thread would have been out of view already for a week.
It seems the current topic is the origin of morality?
Yuribis, thanks for that link, seems I would best put myself as an absurdist, although I might just be misinterpreting some of the terminology. Ah well.
i just joined so i had 24 pages to reply on ,, was replying what i thought the most discussion was based on,,, but if i am of track sorry,,, i am just replying to the things i found most interesting
the kamal argument is not really worth examining imo as it is little different than a basic first cause argument which is easily embarrassed with basic logic , they try to get around this with adding the word " begins" or " finitude" and since god never began he does not need a cause .. however it fails since just because the evidence implies that this cycle of the universe suffered inflation it does not imply previous states before the bigbang ... therefore there is no sufficient reason to assign the universe a cause.the other fallacy of infinite series is also flawed as mathematics would disagree as well as thermodynamics,, not to mention that if nothing is infinite than when did god begin , if he did begin becuase nothing is infinitethan according to your logic he needs a cause.. so i would ask what is his cause ? then you would say god does not need a cause , ,, well if god does not need a cause why does the universe?1+1=2 not much more complected than that... they use pages of unrelated argument but in the end it boils to this simple flaw... ,, i cannot believe any serious atheist would have trouble putting craig in his place .. the entire argument is nothing more than Aquinas revisited.... takes little more than Hume as Aquinas has been ignored by anyone other than theist for centuries.... it is attempting to use logic but the very logic is uses chops away at its base more than it manages to prop it up ...Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences." you cannot know something is designed until you have observed it happening or can relate it to something observed ...
but to conclude the major problems with the theory ...even if the universe in t his current form has a beginning there is no way to know if this is a single random event or a continuous one ,, if it is continuous then the laws of physics are internal ... impersonal ? yes it is .. but logically justified
thought i would reply with this becuase imo craig is just recycling old ideas with a big bang twist added
after all that logic fallacy craig would probably then use intuition as a form of evidence , but this evidence is anecdotal in nature and once again hard to take seriously in light of a centuries old Hume argument
p.s i do not care what we talk about .. but i found the debate between the objectives and skeptics to be worth elaborating on as they were all being jumbled into one in-concise theory
And here I thought (or hoping) I was done with this thread...
On May 09 2010 00:11 chessmaster wrote: the kamal argument is not really worth examining imo as it is little different than a basic first cause argument which is easily embarrassed with basic logic , they try to get around this with adding the word " begins" or " finitude" and since god never began he does not need a cause .. however it fails since just because the evidence implies that this cycle of the universe suffered inflation it does not imply previous states before the bigbang ... therefore there is no sufficient reason to assign the universe a cause. the other fallacy of infinite series is also flawed as mathematics would disagree as well as thermodynamics,, not to mention that if nothing is infinite than when did god begin , if he did not begin than according to your logic he needs a cause then you would say does not need a cuase , ,, well if god does not nned a cuase why does the universe?
Hopefully I've understood what you're saying here. I apologize if I haven't, it's a little difficult to follow what you're saying with the formatting. In any case.
The Kalam would be very similar to Leibniz's argument in that the latter would require an explanation for everything that exists, while the former only goes so far as to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". It's not entirely the same question. Of course, Leibniz would say that the explanation (or cause) of god's existence is in the necessity of his own being (i.e. god exists necessarily), and I think those who adhere to the Kalam would agree with that, even though that's not quite what their syllogism deals with. So in that sense, there is a "cause" to gods existence.
With respect to previous states before the big bang, what cosmological model to you subscribe to? As far as I'm aware, even cyclical models of the universe (i.e. endless cycles of contraction and expansion) fall suspect to the same criticisms that an eternal universe would fall suspect to, with respect to entropy, thermodynamics, etc. So I think, yes, there is a lot to be said for "was there anything "before" the big bang" (which is a tricky thing to phrase, as there would appear that there was not any state of affairs prior to the big bang). That's a question that really does need answering, especially if current models of cosmology state a definite beginning of the universe in the big bang, rather than some sort of eternal or cyclical model. Even still, there is a reason to assign a "cause" to the universe (even in our current model, this would be the big bang).
Now, Craig would say that he distinguishes "infinity" into quantitative (mathematics) and qualitative (attributes and characteristics of god, by this he might mean that gods love is unconditional, boundless, etc.) aspects. He would also create a distinction between potential infinities and actual infinite (with no actual infinities existing, but these would be related to god).
I suppose to end this off, theists have provided a "cause" for god, scientists are likewise trying (or have) provided "causes" for the universe. As far as I'm aware, cosmology predicts a beginning of the universe, so it's natural to ask, what was the cause? Implying that we don't need to provide a cause of the universe, because the theist has not provided a cause for god (give that question some good thought, its a category error) seems to be a confusion.
,, i cannot believe any serious atheist would have trouble putting craig in his place .. the entire argument is nothing more than Aquinas revisted takes little more than hume and has been ignored by anyone other than theist for centuries....
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid?
it is attempting to use logic but the very logic is uses chops away at its base more than it manages to pro it up ...Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences." you cannot now something is designed until you have observed it happening or can relate it to something observed ...
It makes you wonder how Hume came to know that But anyway, you're going to have to do more than just mention Hume and declare "Aha!". This is much more an argument against the sort of reasoning being used (i.e. deductive or inductive, Hume's problem of induction, I believe?) and not the argument itself (it's a question of epistemology, is it not?). Is there a consensus on one reasoning being more valuable than the other? Otherwise the point seems rather moot, and non-sequitur--are there not levels of belief, rather than simply "certain belief"? These arguments draw probable conclusions, rather than certain conclusions. Though I suppose you're free to pursue that line of reasoning if you wish, it just doesn't seem consonant with what you've said above. You'll have to excuse me though, I could be wrong, I haven't read much Hume.
but to conclude the major problems with the theory ...even if the universe in t his current form has a beginning there is no way to know if this is a single random event a continuous one ,, if it is continuous it then the laws of physics are internal ... impersonal ? yes it is .. but logically justified
A proposal Hawking would like, I'm sure. The proposal, however, still requires support.
thought i would reply with this becuase imo craig is just recycling old ideas with a big bang twist added after all that logic fallacy craig would probably then use intuition as a form of evidence , but this evidence is anecdotal in nature and once again hard to take seriously in light of a centuries old Hume argument
Then all I can suggest is that you read up on what Craig is proposing, I'm not entirely sure you've understood him.
once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it
your quote " It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
i am aware the subtle differences but in the end the logical concepts are the same as it pertains to the theory contradicting itself.. auinas doesn't postulate an absolute beginning Craig does....craig postulates a forward progression of time where one unit can always be added that supports his second claim that time cannot reach infinity ,,, but the simple counter to this is since the universe does not require a cause as your god doesn't it is the laws of physics which are infinite and therefore so is time when all forces are unified .. time no longer exist as itr does in the universes current state when the universe is unified.. since craig has never viewed the universe beofere the big bang he cannot postulate time functions the same ut all the current eviden in the very theory he is using as support suggests that the physical forces unify i.e unified field .. so once again a flawed argument, and a very simple one to spot for the serious atheist.... i do understand the finer details of this theory and in the end there is not much new here in the way of concept but there is in the way of minor details.. however in the end the very same fallacy is noticed and same reasons given for debunking...it all boils down to the basic fallacy of his assumptions and subsequent contradictions ,, my debunking while impersonal is not logically flawed
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably. this and only this is the reason it is ignored by those using logic to entertain notion ..
whether he uses something like hilbert's paradox of the grand Hotel to explain the concept of infinite series , then invents a term to explain why this is absurd , the empircal evidence of thermodynamics disagrees with this concept ,, values can be infinite ,,, but in the case if we assume they cannot be ,, then i will ask what created your god so on and so forth , there is no if you say god does not need a cuase then i will say the universe does not either .... there is no way to escape the contradiction with any amount of semantics and i really can really on this and this alone to prove the fallacy if you want to put this theory under logical scrutiny as a logical proof
i do realize the slight difference between aquinas and craig lie in a
i really can list hume and nothing more because the combating logic is completely applicable ...the assertion that it is not similar to auinas or auinas revisited it false because it classified as a cosmological creation argument,, it is merely adding the concept of finite that is basically the premiere difference ....changing the semantically based terms does not change the concepts.... the main one being a logical first cause, reason or whatever else you want to call it the concept is the same ....if i provide a concept in another language while the eccentricities maybe slightly different the concepts will be the same
this is why these types of arguments at least in a logical sense
On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote: once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it
Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer.
On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote: once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it
Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer.
Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake.
it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause
here is your quote ( my quotes button has disappeared so i must do it this way
" Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause."
no i am saying the physical laws are eternal you have it exactly wrong .. i am saying the physical laws have the very properties your god does..if your god does not need a cause then neither do the unified field ,, as a matter of fact that is what i pray to ,, dear unified field though art my heaven etc..
i would not be surprised if you leave that is all someone arguing this logically can do,, once again the very logic the theory attempts to use for support does more in its detriment in the form of dogmatic contradiction .. if god does not need a cause .. neither does the unified field
On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote: once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it
Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer.
Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake.
Do you believe the universe is eternal, or necessary? If not, you see the problem of an infinite series of regressions. So it is not a mistake to ask for the cause of the universe, it is a mistake to say that there is none. But, as I said in my previous reply... I'm going to "bow out". I'm not really interested in the thread any more.
On May 09 2010 02:01 chessmaster wrote: it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause
Frankly, and quite honestly, I'm not following you. So I think I'm going to leave things at that, as I already said I would (to Miramax). My heart (or head) really isn't into this anymore. So I'll look into what you've said, but I'm not going to argue with it
" which is a tricky thing to phrase, as there would appear that there was not any state of affairs prior to the big bang "
this is incorrect .. nothing before the big-bang is implied besides a quantum vacuum or if you choose singularity, which is the very unified form of fields i and basic cosmology postulates ,, the very laws you attempt to use .... you are trying to use some of a theory but not all of it .... but to educate you on the subject since you are confused in reality they cannot get back to the very point of the big bang and certainly not before it .. current particle accelerators are attempting to get as close as they can to what happens after it ,, but still cannot achieve this state to answer another question i see the physical laws as eternal and as being there own necessity as previously stated numerous times , the very quality you place on god to escape causality i place on the universe itself.... once again while this is impersonal it adequately answers Craigs questions
i do not understand what you mean by necessary .. it is necessary because the physical fields exist and that is how they express themselves.. if you mean for spiritual reasons no i do not
here i will make it simple .. this is why i said Aquinas revised because one basic fallacy can be used for all cosmological creation theories ,, if god does not need a cause .. neither do the laws of physics as they exist out side of time before the big bang,,, time is one field that unifies with space ,, space-time does not exist until the fields dis-unify ... the debunk argument is as simple as that.....if god is outside time therefore does not require a cause .. then if the universe in its unified form is also outside time why does it require a cause ? if you cannot follow this basic contradiction proof then you probably should stop because this is all it takes
for example einstien managed to connect space with time viewing time a manifested physical force as well as space ... it is relative to the observer... space and time while currently unified and manifested in the universe can be held to causality .. the existence of all fields being unified preceded causality as it is an expression of the fields being separated.... i am not claiming to know how many cycles this occurs for or what cycle we are on ,, but in the end it comes down to the fact you claim god does not need a cause because he is outside of time and eternal ... the same claim applies to the unified fields so through basic syllogism i can use your own logic to say the universe does not require a cause either... or ask why the universe requires that the governing fields that are unified , need a cause when they are eternal ?
or like this .... everything has cause and effect within time ... therefore there must be a first cause to avoid infinite series ....god is the first cause .....what is gods cause ? he does not need a cause his existence precedes time .....
debunk...
physical laws when unified precede causality and time ... therefore why does the universe require a cause ?
it all comes down to this and has for a long time now..... this and only this is the reason the logic is not regarded seriously.. i am not saying it is not an interesting attempt .. it took several centuries for this basic contradiction to be found although t was not supported by physics it was by logic .. ie.e one more time if god does not need a cause why does the unified universe require one ? both are outside the realm of causality and time becoming their own necessity
you cannot demonstrate or justify why the universe requires a personal origin with this theory ....no matter how hard you try it contradicts itself
" Gnosis Canada. May 09 2010 02:22. Posts 192 PM Profile Quote # By necessary I mean that it is not possible for them not to exist. They would not be contingent on anything, including physical fields. "
then what is god contingent on ?
they are eternal that is what makes them necessary once again .. the very reason no doubt t you will give for god
you cannot escape this contradiction .. if god does not require a necessary reason .. then neither does the quantum vacuum of unified fields,, which exist outside the realm of causality and time as the space-time dimension has not inflated/// as your god also exists outside of time does/// the very reason you give for god not being subject to your arguments i can simply use as reasoning that god is not needed for mine as well .....as the universe also exists outside time in its unified state and thus is not required to have a cause do you follow ?
as many pages can be written on this as wanted but in the end this is all that is needed to reasonably discount it as logical proof.....i am not saying it is not correct ...could not be correct or any of the following ... as opposite a theist i do not pretend to know ...it could be correct ,, i am merely saying it is not a logical proof for god which many theist erroneously attempt to use it as
as i said any serious atheist knows these debunkings , and would just merely repeat them over and over again.... i could not see craig winning a debate on logical grounds with this model with any skilled atheist . the theist will always be forced to acknowledged their own contradictions, as well as the previous debunking of finitude as an absolute assumption ,, he is describing the universe in its current form not its unified one.. also while thermodynamics implies matter is not eternal it allows for it to be....that was my point there... but it really does not matter because none of the laws behave as we understand them when all the fields are unified,, the unified fields exists outside time
so please tell me why god does not require a cause that does not contradict itself? if the very cosmological attributes you use to prove causation doesn't apply to god because he is outside time,... the unified nature of the universe does also for itself ....... i cannot make this more clear as i said earlier if i was to pray it would be to the unified field of physical laws
yeah they get smashed logically.... all they can do is retreat in the end ,, there never has been and still is not a logical system to explain why i should believe in god..... no matter how bad they want there to be one ... like i said it is not the reason many people discount the ideas that make them discountable , it is the very logic provided contradicts itself.. and since you are arguing within the assumptions of Aristotelian logic , than you have to conclude two contrary things cannot both be true, therefore if the theory is a logical contradiction violating the very premises you are attempting to use as your proof, then can we count it as logical proof ?
theist will attempt to ignore these contradictions , but in the end , any serious logician realizes immediately this theory dismisses itself
i think i do a simple refutation over the course of my posts , but there maybe more serious ones i will check it out .. issued the most simple and easily understood , seriously do not know why gnosis had so much trouble with it , i merely turned arguments logic on itself , which is all that refutation takes ,the illumination of the dogma contained within its own description ..... but thx for the link will check this out for sure i am sure there will be some more complex refutations that are a little more dated currently with informal logic
i like how he uses Occam razor that is a nice twist,, while i have entertained this notion i have never postulated it in writing toward the ends of a formal argument,,, man i may become a member of this site looks like fun..
lol then the theist attempts to use occams razor in the process creating a fallacy , but grosely misspells his name lol too funny you would think he would at least learn how to spell the name of the freaking creator of the technique he is using ... too much...
been 10 years since i went to school or have read up on anything really post 2004 or so..
so admit i am a little behind and need to do a few years of catching up
have to admit this guy kicking his logical ass
yeah i use the naturalism equivalent in my posts as well.. saying the physical laws of the universe are eternal ,, not the expressed matter
therefore if the universe itself is eternal , god is not needed.. the theist will try to claim the big bang is proof of a beginning when there is no evidence it is a single event or a continuous one ,, e.g the process has never been observed ,, and even in the case it is a singular event , there is no evidence the unified fields do not exist eternally ,,,then they will say god is a necessary being .. he exists though his own nature therefore does not require a cause ... but that contradiction shows it self clearly ... as the universe it its own necessity through its eternal laws that preclude causation ...as god does through necessity , therefore god once again is not needed
On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote: once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it
Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer.
Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake.
Do you believe the universe is eternal, or necessary? If not, you see the problem of an infinite series of regressions. So it is not a mistake to ask for the cause of the universe, it is a mistake to say that there is none. But, as I said in my previous reply... I'm going to "bow out". I'm not really interested in the thread any more.
On May 09 2010 02:01 chessmaster wrote: it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause
Frankly, and quite honestly, I'm not following you. So I think I'm going to leave things at that, as I already said I would (to Miramax). My heart (or head) really isn't into this anymore. So I'll look into what you've said, but I'm not going to argue with it
I don't think you understood my post. You are asserting the principle of sufficient reason. I am claiming that the principle of sufficient reason is not a primary. Existence precedes causality. This means that there must first be things (or in the case, the universe (which is nothing but all things) before those things can act. You are starting with acting and trying to get with things. You cannot reverse the process and still be coherent.
On May 09 2010 01:34 chessmaster wrote: once again if god is its own cause than why cant the universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal ???? this form of logic is circular. there is no logical postulation to explain this belief.. as my previous post ... theists have provided a cause as they always have .. the difference is they are attempting to logically provide reason for this cause in a flawed argument .. scientist are not once again the logic provided in this very old concpet does more to discredit the idea than it does to support it
Does this not suggest that the universe created itself before it existed (i.e. a contradiction between the necessary nature of the universe - as you're saying - and the reality that the universe had a beginning)? If there could have been different configurations to the laws of physics (which is how I understand possible worlds hypothesis), then I fail to see how they are in any way necessary. And besides, if the universe has a definite beginning, i.e. at one point it didn't exist, then it's not necessary, and therefore has a cause.
It depends. There are a lot of "forum atheists" who seem to think they have the answers to everything, and are surprised to learn that some argument has not yet been adequately answered or rejected or defeated. The Kalam is not a restatement of Aquinas, Hume didn't answer anything and what does it matter if the argument has been ignored? Does that some how make it less valid? "
the reason it is not valid as i mentioned is it is attempting to use logic to provide a reason and it fails miserably
So you keep saying, mind expanding on the assertion? But I'll be honest with you, I really don't feel like discussing this thread for much longer.
Existence precedes causality. There is no cause and effect until there is something. That is why asking for a "cause" of the universe is a mistake.
Do you believe the universe is eternal, or necessary? If not, you see the problem of an infinite series of regressions. So it is not a mistake to ask for the cause of the universe, it is a mistake to say that there is none. But, as I said in my previous reply... I'm going to "bow out". I'm not really interested in the thread any more.
On May 09 2010 02:01 chessmaster wrote: it is because when the fields unify time no longer exists in the way craig postulates for support of his second method..infinite series is not relevant prior to the big bang ,,, also i mentioned there is no proof that this current state of the universe is random ( requiring a cause ) or a series of repeated events .. the existence of unified governing dynamics precede causality .... i.e the universe does not behave in the same way..... as the physical fields are the reason for our existence they are the eternal god if you want to word it like that .. the very reason you give for his argument is self contained within the laws of physics.. they do not require a cause
Frankly, and quite honestly, I'm not following you. So I think I'm going to leave things at that, as I already said I would (to Miramax). My heart (or head) really isn't into this anymore. So I'll look into what you've said, but I'm not going to argue with it
I don't think you understood my post. You are asserting the principle of sufficient reason. I am claiming that the principle of sufficient reason is not a primary. Existence precedes causality. This means that there must first be things (or in the case, the universe (which is nothing but all things) before those things can act. You are starting with acting and trying to get with things. You cannot reverse the process and still be coherent.
Perhaps I didn't. What I am saying is that I don't believe the universe exists necessarily, hence I don't believe it is eternal (and therefore had a definite beginning). That is the reason for my asking "what caused the universe?" If it hasn't always existed, where did it come from? What existed prior to our universe which spawned our universe. Which I understand as getting at the question, why does anything exist at all? So I don't deny that things must first exist before those things can act (otherwise I would be saying something quite silly, along the lines "from nothing, something comes"). As I understand what I'm saying (unless I've confused you or myself with something I said above?) I am starting with things which then move on to acting. And that's the reason I asked if you believed the universe is eternal.
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
On May 09 2010 04:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?
whether you believe it is or not is not sufficient reason to discount the logic.. i do not believe in god and it is also not sufficient reason for disproving your logic ..... the very logic you provide contradicts itself i cannot be more clear than that.... the theory cannot be provided as logical evidence this is the only claim i am making .. while you keep skirting this claim ,,,, it is the only one i make
this theory attempts to prove the existence of god within the realm of basic Aristotelian logic .. therefore if you agree two contrary things cannot be true as this is a postulation within the very logic you are using..... therefore if your theory contradicts itself it cannot be accepted as logical proof....
if you cannot agree with this there is not really anywhere to go from here.... and you may want to research basic logic
i can keep saying this post over and over again in different ways ,, but it all returns to this logical fact...your theory logically contradicts itself.. therefore it is not a logical proof
while my theory cannot disprove god does exist ... it does not need to to discount the logical reliability of yours...i merely have to show your theory contradicting itself with the very logic it trys to prove itself with... and i have effectively done that,,,,,anything else is an argument based purely in semantics
i can keep saying this over and over again in different ways,,,, however the logical refutation will not be escaped
On May 09 2010 04:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?
"So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?"
yes we have answered this several times ... the universe in its unified form is eternal ( i.e unified forces that govern it) but not necessarily independent manifestations of matter e.g the current form after the bigbang
the universe has its own necessity of eternal forces outside of time and does not require the necessity of a personal god outside of time
On May 09 2010 04:06 chessmaster wrote: whether you believe it is or not is not sufficient reason to discount the logic.. i do not believe in god and it is also not sufficient reason for disproving your logic ..... the very logic you provide contradicts itself i cannot be more clear than that.... the theory cannot be provided as logical evidence this is the only claim i am making .. while you keep skirting this claim ,,,, it is the only one i make
this theory attempts to prove the existence of god within the realm of basic Aristotelian logic .. therefore if you agree two contrary things cannot be true as this is a postulation within the very logic you are using.....if your theory contradicts itself it cannot be accepted as logical proof....
i can keep saying this over and over again in different ways ,, but it all returns to this fact
while my theory cannot disprove god does exist ... it does not need to to discount the logical reliability of yours...i merely have to show your theory contradicting itself with the very logic it trys to prove itself with... and i have effectively done that,,,,,anything else is an argument based purely in semantics
i can keep saying this over and over again in different ways,,,, however the logical refutation will not be escaped
I really don't know why you're going over this again. You're not understanding me, I'm having too difficult a time following you, there's nothing much else I can say.
On May 09 2010 04:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
So returning to my original question to you, you believe that the universe is eternal?
yep.
Thanks for replying, probably would have been easier to do that the first time. I'm not familiar with the view, other than that many people hold it. I'm wondering your thoughts on why the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium already, or do you subscribe to a model of the universe which expands and contracts?
really none of these minor details need even be examined to reveal the self contained fallacy of craig and other cosmological creationlist
the only assertion i started with is it fails to prove the existence of god logically because of self contradiction ....,,,,,,,, but i never claimed my view disproved god does exist ... i merely state that according to your own logic god is not needed in spite of the fact it attempts to prove otherwise..
you could look at it this way ... since your argument logically fails . i then have the logical means to use it as a contradiction proof
On May 09 2010 04:21 chessmaster wrote: really none of these minor details need even be examined to reveal the self contained fallacy of craig and other cosmological creationlist
the only assertion i started with is it fails to prove the existence of god logically because of self contradiction ....,,,,,,,, but i never claimed my view disproved god does exist ... i merely state that according to your own logic god is not needed
Is this the same "self-contradiction" where you keep asking, "where did God come from? Who is God contingent upon?" Because if it is, then I only refer you to what I said above in reply to you.
the contradiction once again for about the 10th time,,,,, is you claim god does not require a cause based on the fact he is separate from time and therefore not dependent on the laws of causality
where as i state the universe in its unified state is also outside time .. therefore according to your own reasoning does not require a cause ...
you cannot attempt to use logic to prove something .. and then exempt yourself from those very rules you are using
once again i am not proving god does not exist logically ....i am disproving your theory does so with your own logical rules ..
if you cannot follow this then i suggest you relearn basic logic and start ove rfrom there because this really is going nowhere ... which the theory does all on its own
On May 09 2010 04:17 Gnosis wrote: Thanks for replying, probably would have been easier to do that the first time. I'm not familiar with the view, other than that many people hold it. I'm wondering your thoughts on why the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium already, or do you subscribe to a model of the universe which expands and contracts?
If a universe is in a state of equilibrium, is it possible to observe that universe from within that universe itself?
Separately, if a universe comes into existed, does it not need to have a context to exist in? Because you could also define the universe(new definition) to be that container complete with its content universe(original definition).
really to disprove the kamal model or ones put forth by craig logically prove god exists all we have to do is show it violates itself with the same logic it uses ,,,,,
i have effectively done this
i am not claiming there is no god ... i am not claiming craigs views are not correct ,,, i am claiming they cannot be logically proven
On May 09 2010 04:28 chessmaster wrote: the contradiction once again for about the 10th time,,,,, is you claim god does not require a cause based on the fact he is separate from time and therefore not dependent on the laws of causality
where as i state the universe in its unified state is also outside time .. therefore according to your own reasoning does not require a cause ...
if you cannot follow this then i suggest you relearn basic logic and start ove rfrom there because this really is going nowhere ...
Do you not understand what I mean when I say that I'm not following you? Simply repeating yourself ad nauseum isn't going to get the point across (sorry!). I'm not a mathematician, I haven't studied "unified theory" and I'm certainly no cosmologist--as if I ever claimed I was one! You are assuming I hold the same presuppositions you do (i.e. the same definition of eternity as not timelessness but infinite time. i.e. the universe has existed "since eternity" because it has existed concurrently with time, etc.). I probably don't. I'm not following you because I have no idea what basis you're arguing from or even what you're saying, half the time.
So to answer your question - after a half hour of looking up where you're coming from - yes, if you define eternity as infinite time, then the universe is in that sense eternal and requires no explanation. if you definite eternity as timelessness, then different story. I've never disagreed with this.
Sorry, but if you're going to keep insisting on replying you're going to have to do a better job of explaining yourself. It's not as if I've come here (as someone else thought) to be some sort of Christian apologist. That sentiment is just palmface worthy.
On May 09 2010 04:17 Gnosis wrote: Thanks for replying, probably would have been easier to do that the first time. I'm not familiar with the view, other than that many people hold it. I'm wondering your thoughts on why the universe isn't in a state of equilibrium already, or do you subscribe to a model of the universe which expands and contracts?
If a universe is in a state of equilibrium, is it possible to observe that universe from within that universe itself?
Separately, if a universe comes into existed, does it not need to have a context to exist in? Because you could also define the universe(new definition) to be that container complete with its content universe(original definition).
As I understand equilibrium, it wouldn't be possible in the sense that no observers would be possible (the universe would be effectively "dead"). As for the second question, not quite sure I'm following you. When the universe "came into existence" then likewise matter, time, space came into existence as well?
"When the universe "came into existence" then likewise matter, time, space came into existence as well?"
yes all of these forms of manifestations are forms of the unified fields separating.. god is neither a reason or a necessity for this by your own logic.. this state is outside of time and causality therefore does not require its own cause the same as your god..
so in conclusion we have logically removed the necessity of god using the very logical postulations you use to explain the reason for one
On May 09 2010 04:44 chessmaster wrote: you seriously do not follow this simple logic ?what exactly do you not follow ?
No, I never said I didn't follow your logic. I'm not following you because 1) I don't know what you mean by your terms, 2) you're assuming we hold the same suppositions and 3) some of what you're saying is, frankly, going over my head (again, unified theory?). But I said this all in my last post, so why you aren't understanding what I'm saying now is strange.
On May 09 2010 04:47 chessmaster wrote: gnosis writes
"When the universe "came into existence" then likewise matter, time, space came into existence as well?"
yes all of these forms of manifestations are forms of the unified fields separating.. god is neither a reason or a necessity for this by your own logic this state is outside of time and causality
You realize that the argument (Kalam) doesn't argue explicitly for the existence of god (as I understand it), only that the universe has a cause? I don't recall arguing that the Kalam in some way proved god, you're free to point out where I have.
you were talking about kalam as it related to craig that is where but eve n in the sense of a "first cause " the same logic applies ,, it merely becomes a semantic debate at this point
you can call it first cause or you can call it god .. they essentially perform the same function in your argument
this is an attempt to pull the rug out from under the discussion using semantics
the logic speaks for itself, and it based on the values of the terms , not which terminology you use
as i have said you can no more prove the existence of a first cause than i can prove there is not one
but i can use your logic to disprove the need for one
Just to briefly outline a point Gnosis, there appears, hopefully for fairly self-explanatory reasons a problematic hypocrisy in holding the position "I don't believe the universe exists necessarily"
Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'.
Unless you can outline specifically why it must be that God is of such a different nature to the universe, in a way which does not presuppose his existence , then holding the two positions I would argue is not justifiable.
Btw please take my question as simply resulting from enjoyment of discussion on these things. Seems like you may be being bombarded and I'm not trying to add to that.
On May 09 2010 04:57 XeliN wrote: Just to briefly surmise a point Gnosis, there appears, hopefully for fairly self-explanatory reasons a problematic hypocrisy in holding the position "I don't believe the universe exists necessarily"
Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'.
Unless you can outline specifically why it must be that God is of such a different nature to the universe, in a way which does not presuppose his existence , then holding the two positions I would argue is not justifiable.
Well it would be what I said in a previous response. As I understand it, the universe came into being (or existence) at a certain point (13.7 billion years ago?) And because it came into existence, it therefore isn't necessary. There are some other things I want to say, but don't know quite how, so I'll wait until you reply to say them.
On May 09 2010 05:01 XeliN wrote: Btw please take my question as simply resulting from enjoyment of discussion on these things. Seems like you may be being bombarded and I'm not trying to add to that.
No no, it's fine. It's just that for some reason it's been assumed that I'm some theist apologist, looking to defeat every position contrary to mine. I should have hoped my discussion with Miramax "proved" the opposite, I'm really only asking questions because I sincerely want to learn. Apparently some people won't allow for that.
lOvOlUNiMEDiA United States. May 09 2010 04:04. Posts 369 PM Profile Quote # The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.
this is exactly correct..... one of the three basic questions
ontological .. epistemological ... materialistic .. each has its own basic question as it relates to existence and our ability to perceive it...... to suppose why we are even here or why the universe needs a cause it to ask exactly this question
Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.
In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.
There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.
I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point
On May 09 2010 05:12 XeliN wrote: Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.
In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.
There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.
I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point
I as understand what you are saying, then we should include the "singularity" (or whatever it is) as part of the universe, and hence we can suggest that this exists necessarily, such that the universe itself exists necessarily. I don't really see what I could disagree with there. If this singularity is a point of breakdown, such that we're dealing with metaphysical claims, then I don't see how I could deny that this, as well as or in place of god, could exist of its own necessity.
Is that what you meant?
And for you, chessmaster... I'm still looking through Oppy / Mackie / Taylor / Morriston to see where you're coming from. I hadn't read them before in relation to the Kalam, so at least thanks for that.
xelin this is essentially correct .. you can define simply as a unified field of the 5 basic physical forces in nature and the 3 spacial dimensions unified with time as they already are( maybe 6 in the case of anti gravity or the cosmological constant) 5 has a nice radial symmetry to it however
gravity strong and weak nuclear forces electricity magnetism (cosmological constant ... anti gravity) space time
all of these combine to form one force... this is my god.... it is subject to the same values that craig would logically attempt to use to prove the existence of god based on causality
although craig does throw a very strange and unrelated argument of intuition in there which never really made much sense in the way of logic to me as it is nothing more than anecdotal in nature and cannot be effectively quantified or objectively reaoned.... .. or you can could choose a string theory approach of unified dimensions to form the unified existence either would sufiice.. neither postulates any previous existences either before or outside this state or the number of times this process occurs
physicists are generally working on understanding how this state caused the big bang by dialing back the clock as close as they can get to the moment of the big bang .. this is what the current particle accelerator or the large hadron collider if you will( L.H.C) is being used for
it is dialing back the clock trying to get as close as it can to how particles behaved after the bigbang by producing temperatures that have not existed since the bigbang occured ,, attempting to view the fields in the most unified state possible,,,,, also they want to observe short lived quantum black holes , strange quarks and other phenomenon that are predicted by the experiment
I'm not too certain on the physical side of this, but yeah that is my point. There is nothing about the nature of the universe that shows that "It exists neccesarily" is any less of a sound and justifiable assertion than "God exists neccesarily", at least purely from a scientific understanding of the universe.
Although I would assume your belief in god does not rest on this point, and there are a huge number of things that have presumably led you to the belief that God's existence and role in creation is more persuasive, or justifiable, than the notion of the universes necessary existence.
I just wanted to highlight the earlier contradiction.
The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.
For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote: The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.
For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.
I'm not sure, I think that's breaching little more than semantics, and is really dependent upon whether or not you view the universe as created, or eternal (i.e. if there was a point where only god existed, then this comprised "the universe," which had added to it our universe... or something like that).
On May 09 2010 05:26 XeliN wrote: I'm not too certain on the physical side of this, but yeah that is my point. There is nothing about the nature of the universe that shows that "It exists neccesarily" is any less of a sound and justifiable assertion than "God exists neccesarily", at least purely from a scientific understanding of the universe.
Although I would assume your belief in god does not rest on this point, and there are a huge number of things that have presumably led you to the belief that God's existence and role in creation is more persuasive, or justifiable, than the notion of the universes necessary existence.
I just wanted to highlight the earlier contradiction.
Seems to make sense, I'll have to look into it more.
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote: The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.
For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.
yeah this argument is used in the debate link provided on the other page ,, another simple logical contradiction
someone else provided it but i found it entertaining .......here i will provide it again
this however is autonomous to the point i was making ( i was merely demonstrating the first cause argument does not prove the existence of god logically )it is based on some of the same principals.... this is a debate whether the existence of god is unlikely or likely
as a result some of the ideas are based on more informal logic equations and not a simple direct contradiction proof ... so do not assume all of these arguments relate to the thesis i made
you will probably find it more interesting than the regurgitated position i have been forced to make over and over again until acknowledgment
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote: The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.
For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.
I'm not sure, I think that's breaching little more than semantics, and is really dependent upon whether or not you view the universe as created, or eternal.
The Kalam fails to define "time" or "the universe", and then plays with those undefined terms. It is a semantic game.
I defined the term that I used. I did not define "time" or "God" since your/WLG's argument is the one predicated on them and therefore defining them is your/WLG's responsibility.
If you want to use a different definition of the universe, present it.
My only problem with these videos is that a lot of it essentially runs under the assumption that if something is logically impossible, it is indeed impossible. The reason I have a problem with this is that it assumes that our logic is absolute, which it isn't. While I do believe there is an underlying logic to the way this universe functions, I do not believe we can assume our understanding of it is indeed correct or valid. This is why I feel that we need to be able to have an open mind. It's perfectly fine to approach things with skepticism, but more often than not, we have a tendency to approach things with cynicism.
This really isn't meant to be a defense of God, religion, etc. or anything else, but rather a call to accept that perhaps we may not know as much as we believe we do. And so long as we argue on the basis of something we do not know or understand to be irrefutably true, what makes an atheist any different from a theist? The truth is we're arguing with eachother along two completely different lines of thought. The theist will argue on possibility whereas the atheist's argument is completely about probability simply because he cannot make any definitive statement as to what exactly is impossible.
So where is the big conflict here? If anything, exploring science has completely blown my mind and shown me that things that I would have considered logically impossible before are indeed possible and that there is seemingly no end to the depth of knowledge in this universe that we've yet to unlock and who knows what the next door to discovery will reveal?
Critical thinking and reasoning are certainly important skills to apply in our everyday lives much like Newtonian physics is consistent enough to have real-world applications, but their relevance sharply drops when it comes to discussions of absolute truth because we simply have no fundamental knowledge of absolute truth beyond our shared human experience on which to base any discussions (and in the case of Newtonian physics, we've since learned that the nature of the universe is quite different from what Newton envisioned...).
I feel in many ways science has made me more open to the possibility of religion than anything, which is why I am always saddened when religious zealots wage their wars against scientific progress. My belief is that if one has true faith in his religion, he need not fear the potential of scientific knowledge debunking it because you would have enough faith to believe it won't happen since science only seeks to uncover truth rather than impose it. Besides, if your religion can somehow be proven wrong beyond any doubt, wouldn't you want to know anyway? Why do people fear knowledge?
yeah man i have demonstrated many times over and over again with different languag how the values of that arguments violates itself
we cannot even agree that is someone tries to use logic than they are not exempt from the logic they attempt to use
he keeps saying he does not understand ,,, however because he is providing much more difficult concepts than those in his model
i can deduce he is intentionally not understanding them for whatever reason
or does not actually understand the values of his own model and is just throwing out terms
the terms are based on values,, the contradiction proof is nothing more than simple math
i am in know way attempting to insult you , but i am really starting to think you might not understand the very model you are using ..... the logical debunk is very straightforward and uses the very concepts used in your model,,,, therefore i can assume if you do not honestly understand my reply , you honestly do not understand your model... if i also assume i am correctly communicating it( which i am)
he claims a logical reason for his god not to need a cause and i applied the same values or equalities to the unified state of the universe ,, but fro some reason he does not understand what this implies i am really trying to put it as simply as i can but the 5 or 10 times i have tried i honestly have done it as conclusively as i am able , ..... if you cannot understand the linguistic values and their implications , i assume you probably would not understand the mathematical ones if i were to demonstrate the contradiction in these terms
Chessmaster, are you willing to take it to PM's? I'll have to re-read all your responses, because I am seriously having trouble understanding you. I just don't want to go over all of it again in thread, misunderstand what you're saying, have four other people jump in at the same time, etc. etc.
If not, I'll do it in thread, but I don't think it would be appropriate.
On May 09 2010 06:19 chessmaster wrote: i am essentially saying the same thing every one else is......just in a different way .. in a more mathematical way using words as values
yeah i have provided enough information for you to educate your self at this point
No, you're saying more than they have. You're going deeper than they have. The problem with your replies is that you're assuming I know more than I do, merely because I'm familiar with "complex models" (a safe but not always accurate induction. I am not formally educated in this area, so while I do have fairly good knowledge of the subject, it's not where it should be, nor is it complete). If you don't want to continue, that's fine. Well, maybe I'll look through all your replies again later on, but right now, I need to read up to see what your presuppositions are.
ok here is a post you claim to follow,, this i hope at least will clarify some things then i am goona take a nap i will equate my words ( values ) to the ones he uses at the end in very simple form
XeliN United Kingdom. May 09 2010 05:12. Posts 831 PM Profile Quote #
Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.
In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.
There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.
I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point
this post from xelin essentially says the same thing you say you understand, so if i can relate my values with his you should be able to grasp them
his term dual position = my term contradiction
his term universe incorporates pre and post bigbang= the same as mine does with unified field and post bigbang
since this equality has been shown to exist outside of time t ....he unified field is enternal and thus does not require a cause ... i.e as he said the universe did not spring into being from nothingness .. ok follow me so far ? as of now i have equated every term he used valuewise ...with every one i used
, so now using purely your own logic , it can be shown that the universe does not require a cause== hence contradiction = his term once again dual position you claimed god was outside of time and its rules of causation ... i apply the same value to the universes unified forces and pre-big bang state...... he applies it to pre and post big bang which is really saying the same thing
so we can conclude according to your own logic god is not needed for a cause as the universe is its own cause ( once again the universe did not spring from nothing xelins terms you claim to understand) , just as you claim god is his own cause ,,, you follow ?
while we are saying slightly different things the essential values are the same and can be interchangable
XeliN United Kingdom. May 09 2010 05:12. Posts 831 PM Profile Quote # Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.
In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.
There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.
I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point
this post from xelin essentially says the same thing you say you understand
his term dual position = my term contradiction
his term universe incorporates pre and post bigbang= the same as mine does with unified field
since this equality has been shown to exist outside time , using purely your own logic , it cn be shown that the universe does not require a cause== hence contradiction
You are saying, then, that the universe is eternal in the sense that it existed in one state (singularity) which moved to a different state, the expanded universe we experienced today, correct? So you are making a metaphysical claim, rather than a scientific one, for the former state?
no it is the current theory the standard model is based on ,, i do not make the claim but every major cosmological physicists you really are grasping at straws now.. but in any event it is not needed either way you are the one describing time and its interactions to causality not me... if you want to provide a different model you can choose to.. i am merely demonstrating that all phsysical forces are unified pre big bang ,, but for arguments sake so you will quit grasping at semantiC straws let us assume unified field theory is wrong........... guess what ? it does not matter your model still contradicts itself. once again the burdern is on you not me i am merely providing some current physics to help you understand how causality can cease to produce infinite series but my logic is not dependent on it as i can merely argue form a double standard standpoint as i have and xelin has ... you keep grapsing at these semantics and ignoring your contradictions once again the burden is on you to tell me why my assertion of your contradiction is false i have already logically demonstrated with our without the physics based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS THAT GOD DOES NOT REQUIRE A CAUSE
i can merely you use your own values you present as i have several times and xelin did if you want to provide different values you can but we are working with the ones provided
if i want all i have to say based on your logic is the isolated event of the big bang is not sufficient evidence to say that the universe cam from nothing before the bigbang and is subject to the rules of causality.... if you claim god is not subject to the rules of casualty .. it creates a double standard,, or contradiction THERE IS NO REASON THAT IS LOGICALLY TENABLE THAT THE AN ATEMPORAL UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ITS OWN CAUSE /// ONCE YOU POSTULATE THAT AN ATEMPORAL GOD CAN BE ITS OWN CAUSE.. really you keep ignoring this simple point , but at least you are trying
if you cannot accept Craigs , kamal or any other first cause argument creates its own contradiction no matter what paper they wrap it in , then really there is not much more to talk about
as we cannot even get you to agree or acknowledge what a dual standard or contradiction is
Just to make clear my position in the argument so it does not get mixed up, I was asserting that on our scientific understanding of the universe alone, there is no reason to assert that "God neccesarily exists and the universe does not". I hesitantly would go further in saying that, in fact, the scientific understanding of the universe might suggest "The universe exists necessarily" is a more defensible and justified position than invoking a neccesary God.
This may be a metaphysically problematic position to hold however.
CM, I'm going to go through all your replies later on tonight and I'll get back to you after that, I have a good idea of what you're saying (the parts you've reiterated 12 times now) but I'm missing your reply as a whole. You'll just have to be patient
ok ok i will try harder to be patient i thought you were intentioanl ignoring my point why i kept saying it over and over i just wanted you to acknowledge it.... if i was hostile i apologize i will tone it down i admit these types of debates excite me lol as i do not get to have them often and sometimes i tend to jump to conclusions dealing with mis-communications and what they imply,,as i should be more patient as not to scare away the people i get to share this with .. sorry if my implications offended you.....
but first i will reiterate the previous assertion just so it is very clear and also i will provide a better format it will make it easier to understand the illustrations .. the next posts will deal with craigs contradiction in how he views time ... as both on this same post would just be a ridiculously long single post
1 i am not claiming he is not correct or that i can prove that he is incorrect
2 i am claiming this is not a logical proofing for a reason of existence of god
3.. i am claiming the argument is circular
4 i am claiming his views on time contradict one-another( see next post)
1. A.. the first and only needed logical contradiction is based on the values the very theory provides / the very nature of its premises contradicts itself as previously stated and now agreed upon,, in the next posts i will provide more self contained contradiction based on the very tools craig attempts to use to form his postulations
a.....if god is eternal thus does not require a cause why does the universe require one if its governing forces are eternal ?
b.....everything that begins and all matter within to exist are equivalent to the unified fields or dynamic states of the universe ....they are not equivalent only if one presupposes the existence of an exterior being , such as a god.. in craigs theory this assumption presupposes its own conclusion ... this makes it untenable justifiably speaking
c....the math goes something like this using basic conservation of energy i will use a mathematical equation to show a fallacy of circular reasoning this way you can work through the values if you wish and visualize the concept now this next set or principlas is my original maxim and may contain some flaws as i have not worked on it for years the basic framework ,, and i actualy belief my model has less flaws than craigs ..as mine is based on the empirical evidence of current cosmological theories more consistently .... it goes at follows d......no matter can be literally thought to begin. The only instance of something beginning to exist is the universe it self (or the totality of space and matter) beginning to exist in the separation of the post unified field. example, one might argue that a person begins to exist after conception , being born, or a certain trimester and continues to exist until their death. but this is flawed , the person's body is composed of atoms that have existed for the entire duration of this universal dynamic, and were formed in the super nova of stars, and will continue to exist long after they rot and are broken down into those atoms once again . From this perspective, matter is only ever arranged to a new state transferred bwteen one type to another ; this view is helped by de broglie as he shows that there is no real difference between matter and energy on the atomic level .. so even if the case of energy ,, it is also a form of matter reorganizing itself ...it does not begin or cease to exist.even light can be shown to have particle weight , on an atomic level it is no different than matter... it is rules by the strong and weak nuclear forces.. This undermines the argument for the causal premise that we experience things causally coming into our existence. the illustration of this circular reasoning can be arranged as this basic logic proof ..
a... X = matter /energy, and the physical forces
b.... Y = causality
c .... Z = the universe
D....... implied logic 1. all X is Y 2. z is X 3. Z is Y
Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist in its dynamic states "all X" is equivalent to Y thus rendering craigs or kamals argument logistically circular
Actual logic 1. Z is Y 2. Z is x 3. Z is y
d.... the big-bang is not sufficient evidence to imply that the universe springs forth from nothing as there is not enough empirical evidence about the state of " before " in a process no one has ever observed e.g the state of the universal forces and matter before the big-bang
d..... zenos paradox , thomson's lamp , or gradis seriers among many others can philosophically provide enough doubt of the value of finitudes as a natural proof which would take pages all in its own.. however as this one is not really required based on the presumptions of god i can place on the dynamic pre-bigbang state with the before mentioned circular proof
e... there is no empirical evidence that the expression of time is the same before the big-bang thus if god is separate from time in the current universe , and therefore released from causality... then why can't the universe be released from causality before the big bang ? once again this support the previous logic
f..."I don't believe the universe exists necessarily" Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'.as xelin pointed out this position in not justifiably tenable as you give no reason why to believe one over the other
g... ....to use one of your quotes.. "As I understand equilibrium, it wouldn't be possible in the sense that no observers would be possible (the universe would be effectively "dead " you are describing a model of the universe "dead" which is basically using the physics term " static" static implies after the big bang the edge was form or after expansion when the edge is finally realized the universe will stop expanding and remain at its current size fro eternity unless acted on by an outside force ( god?... Einstien made the biggest mistakes of his career falsifying evidence to make the universe appear static even though hubbles evidence implied otherwise , he retracted his paper apologized and claimed it was the biggest mistake of his carrer ( i Einstein wasted to prove god existed and lost his objectivity ) but ironically his vary views on space- time have helped proved the the universe is dynamic ..... the model i am using to describes the universe is dynamic.. however i do not postulate the amount of times it changes between said dynamic states ... but ironically the existence of a first cause that is separate from the universe describes the universe will be static and would allow for observation if you could get beyond the edge ... e.g fish bowl , ant farm , etc .. this is why most scientist that are theist try to prove a static universe.... a dynamic one does not require a god .. steven hawkings himself says this well with a comment something to the effect of " if we assume the universe is static, and there is an edge ,, then we must assume there is a god " this may have been an approach you can take .. however the physical cosmological evidence right now appears the universe is not static, it is dynamic and is expanding and makes no postulates of said states outside the current state of this dynamic process..
example theists will often site this finding at an incomplete attempt to support the priori position that the universe had a beginning outside time and thus requires a cause while denying dynamic states , trying to incur a relative view on time where it matters but ignore it when it does not,; per kalam 3 basic assumptions and described values, they will often site cosmologists produced a theorem (the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem) which requires such a universe to have a beginning." however this is flawed for one very simple reason The BGV theorem only applies to a universe that is (on average) expanding. All eternal models are not described ,, meaning outside dynamic existence of atemporal time the very quality they assign to god,,,when it is finished it may collapse again .. or maybe turn into another dynamic state that we cannot assume much about 1...... once again theist explain this by adding one more part, god then all things being equal it requires more proof as it adds one more needed part . 2........cannot show why it is needed other than asserting it is....
2.... let us examine the theists claiming god as immaterial , yet contingently, necessary
A...... what is the mechanism of consciousness that avoids it having parts, you cannot reasonably assert a local, complex universe , that has a separate atemporal god without giving a me a reason as why i should believe this and what is the mechanism , god being nessasry coupled with this presupposing its own existence, places more burden of proof on the theist as this is circular. .. also the burden of proof is on this position because all thing being equals these two models that explain existence the theist has one more part thus must provide a reason for this part just asserting becuase it needs to be does nothing to answer this question for previous reasons stated.
a.... . the theist model also begs its own question by using contrary and perception of time ( which while be shown in the next post) terms, and explaining this by presupposing there is a god . ironically the very assertion the theist makes , like most arguments , does not allow the theist to survive the compared burden of proofs in a logical discussion . so it returns once again to faith..
3......intelligent design as it relates to ordered complexity a.... if you attempts to use intelligent design as it pertains to ordered complexity as a reason for a contingent simultaneous necessary, atemporal creator, then you are supposing an infinite being with the ability to, incur relate. and transmit infinite amounts of energy, you are in fact arguing a complex being , hiding this in contrary terms does nothing to avoid begging your own question for a reason... the very type of assertion aquinas would make .. example ///that since the universe is of ordered complexity.. it had to have a creator result?.. reasonably speaking we must apply this same criteria to god , if he is infinitly complex what created god ? the theist will often blur the lines between these two definitions , claiming god is needed , but the same time making god a simple immaterial being ,while attempting to maintain simultaneous omnipotence and avoid there owned asserted intelligent design argument, they provide no mechanism for this other than the assertion itself which is circular not to mention a contradiction of the basic terms omnipotent,immaterial,conscious,all powerful ,
so to conclude this section they avoid the question of what created god .., by asserting nothing did because god exists atemporally from time , then if my universe model also exists in an atemporal quantuum vancuum of unified fields, why does it require a separate simultaneously contingent and necessary being ,,,once again the burden of proof is on the theist , my model does not postulate a separate being that requires a separate definition ,, therefore since the dynamic naturalistic view i am putting forth is self explained in its own right and requires no outside influence ,, it requires , reasonably speaking less burden of proof argumentatively. as it has one less part ....i may simply use occams razor to imply this conclusion..
why i said any serious atheist would not have a problem with this particular theory from craig
and i imagine craig would not choose to argue it with one, at least within the parameters of formal logic..he would instead choose to escape the logic through some basic assumptions of the universe .. like there was nothing but god before the universe ... = and the fact that the big-bang happened is proof of this as this is the beginning everything with a beginning has a cause etc... but once again he is transitioning values from its post big-bang state to its pre-big-bang state ......but saying this does not make it logically provable...... however naturalism and physics sufficiently and with less burden explain why the current universe did not come from nothing , than supernatural ones prove that is does
does this make more sense ?
observations he bases these on are not sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the contradiction inherent in his system and overcome the burdern of proof of adding one more part that does not sufficiently explain why it is more necessarily than the unfied forces ..
1 ... this is not enough to disprove he is correct .. 2... pointing out the contradiction is enough to say it is not a logical proof , 3.... the only thing i claim is number 1 and 2 ,,,,,,,,,
in the next post i will examine how craigs model contradicts itself with its own constructions of time as to try to avoid problems that occur with his model ,,, this fails miserably at providing the burden of proof that theist need ,, but this is the typical of the modern approaches they will try
some of these are my thoughts and some concepts i complied from research from james stills although i am not directly quoting him in all places i am in some where i leave quotations ,, s.. i also use kalams concepts as they relate to craigs contradictions in his view between relative time and absolute ... these terms are explored in these theories and i do not take credit for them ...several ideas however i did postulate independent of these as previous original ideas in my posts ..completely based on my own quotation , ideas , and models based on information i independently acquired ... some of these ideas are a revision of stills and still could be considered dangerously close to quotation in places ...i do give him credit for helping direct me toward craigs self contradiction in the case of his view on time... it is very similar in places as i merely changes a few words here and there and the order in which they are presented as to put my own flair on it ...but the values of the approximate words are the same . kabal i directly quote as a method of bringing attention to craigs contradictions as he switches between viewpoints on time..,, i hope this clarifies both this post and some of the other mechanical problems inherent in this theory , and why in a logical sense it contradicts itself on the level of construct , not just the basic one i overtly mentioned before ....... but as i said before non of this logical dissemination is new and at least several decades old in most cases and centuries old in others.... enjoy
as craig separates times from the universe and i do not ,, i choose to rely on the theory of relativity as it pertains to time in a realistic context , the quantum model, and string theory.. .which successfully unifies them at least in concept , and the subsequent notion of a unified field of all forces in a realistic viewpoint of spacetime .. while he runs into a basic problem ,,, he uses two different incompatible forms of time to explain himself.. The view i put forth on unified field and time are not mutually exclusive as they relate to my model and its logical assumptions in the previous post and over the course of this post.. with an unclear notion of the concepts of time . how should we view Craigs view on eternity to mean relational atemporal existence \ or is he instead viewing eternity / infinitely 1......craig can mean one of only two philisophical things using these notions a ...Eternity is either a finite , predictable chain of events within infinite absolute time and space, b..... or eternity is a timeless state that connotes absence of matter and perceived reality since there is nothing directly in motion.
A.....first we will examine a possibility that eternity is an infinity of time .. 1.....if eternity is infinite time" per a realist explanation of time, then we are forced to explain what events, occurred during the quantity of time preceding the existence =the universe. to put this in a theistic context Aquinas wondered often to his dismay, what was God doing before God created the universe? ...the following fit of panic and its derisive implications led him to believe the universe was the result of a choice made with purpose by god... while i touched based on this in previous posts this examines the details more closely,,,,,there is an old argument that is called " why not sooner" or if god is separate from time why did he take an eternity to create the universe , which i will get to shortly .. and this is what aquinas feared .. if the universe has a certain age what was god doing before he created it ?,, and why did he not do it sooner than he did in the face of timeless eternity to avoid these problem craigs veiws time not as absolute but relational view which is separate and quantifiably measurable from the universe
2.. but then Craig contradicts himself in his next proof and completely switches his standpoint and agrees with the very relational view of eternity that posed problems to the previous logical examples ....thus contradicting himself as when he discusses the problem of an actual infinite, he "slips into an absolute view of time to use the principle of determination in the kalam argument’s conclusion " stills..... , instead of the relational one we mentioned above .....this is a clear case of logical contradiction
a..... argues that the universe began because of thermodynamic properties ( entropy i assume [since everything moves toward disorder it must have a starting organized point i am agthering from this concept based on my understanding of the second law .. while i did not research this point i cannot imagine he is using any law but the second here ] and the impossibility of an actual infinite. ( which however i find slightly ironic as thermodynamics allows for infinite energy in another law but he is not a physicist so what can you expect, ..... however, if eternity is equal to utter-void, then the universe is eternal in that there can be no reality in which time cannot be existent by its own definition . ( my view of unified field) in order to effectively and syllogistically argue a god who decides an action , Craig finds it is necessary to revert to an absolutist view of time and space . It is either that contradiction which is easier to hide in terms and rhetoric or he \has little choice but to beg the question for absolute time under the implicit assumption that a god exists previous to the universe (,, i.e Aquinas used this approach as we have labeled the subtle difference between Aquinas and Craig // that you mentioned earlier // Aquinas had already failed histroically to logical prove a need for gods existence so if craig was going to accomplish anything new he could not use this standpoint he was veritably forced into this decision from the momentum of wanting to complete this model /// in spite of these differences similar problems between the two arise...) This equality is observed readily in Craig’s conclusion where he asks "why did the universe begin to exist , when it did instead of existing from eternity?."
c...Craig asks, "if the big bang occurred in a dense singularity existing from eternity, then why did the big bang occur only 15 billion years ago?"Why did the unidimensional blob of matter wait for all eternity to explode "....craig’s concern is wonders how god could choose between two outcomes that are equal in likelihood . However, he wrongly presupposes an ontological view of time that confuses timeless eternity with temporal infinity and this is the key point which i will elaborate on below....
d.. ". this very infinity he describes is supposed to be priori impossible in the kalam argument ".... In other words, if the super dense singularity exists "from eternity" how can it "wait for all eternity" before producing its inflation ?" john stills quote..... this in my humble opinion is where the serious irreparable contrary flaws lie
e....."..In a relational view of time, the universe’s state from the first moment is its existence from eternity;" thus, Craig’s questions only make sense from a realist view of time and space. Yet, we have already seen that Craig relies upon a relational view of time in his argument to prove that the universe cannot be infinite time i.e the finitude arguments. 3....so what does this contradiction mean and what can we infer from it ?? a..." from eternity" how can it "wait for all eternity" stills..... before producing its inflation and realized existence ? In a relational view of time, the universe’s existence from the first moment is its existence seperated from eternity; thus, craig’s questions only make sense from a realist view . Yet, we have already seen that Craig relies upon a relational view of time in his argument to prove that the universe cannot be infinite in time. The kalam argument becomes entangled in this and it only manages to confuse notions of eternity when it argues that God freely chose to create the universe in a static space time. b....If time is absolute—and the universe began to exist while God is proportionate to infinity— then his reply seems quite applicable. But if eternity is timelessness, then his reply is not sufficient because it excludes anything outside of space-time as requiring a sufficient reason for its existence. If God’s atemporal existence requires no cause then we must also admit that an atemporal unified field does not require a cause either. no matter who poses this model before you you can always bring it back to this point.. they cannot attept to escape the reason through the finitude arguments .. but for several reasons i have provided this does not satisfy reason..so once again this contradiction a theist will inevtitable be forced to observe if they want to play fair.. "This is to say that, in a relational view of time, if there is no time t prior to the existence of the universe at t = 0, then any efficient cause (such as an initial big bang singularity) must be an eternal, uncaused cause. In other words, we would have no means of determining whether the efficient cause of the universe was naturalistic or supernaturalistic " john stills....... c...." One could now use the principle of sufficient reason to argue that, despite its timeless nature, an initial singularity is still a positive fact that requires a reason and, therefore, must be an intermediate cause rather than the primary cause. .. If an initial singularity did result in the universe and was itself efficiently caused by a first cause, then God might be that elusive first cause. However, there is no way of knowing this short of arbitrarily saying so" john stills .. but an argument i covered already however he does it so much better than me,
no theism be it personal or impersonal can negotiate the problems between the reason for god and the causation i view these values as being inversely proportionate . In this sense i like to use Heisenberg's uncertainty principal as an approximate illustration..since the two inverse values of electrons are directly related as you measure one the others changes .. thus you cannot never know both at once... this theory theists have particular problems with as per Einstiens response "god does not play dice" if the universe behaves randomly there is no need for god....Instead referring to flawed instrumentation's , the values are not truly inverse..While i am not showing my own philosophical model here in its fullest ( only in a sense to disprove craigs logic) i did not use this principal (uncertainty) to support any claims, instead will reserve it for any of your responses on my cosmology.. While this same argument Einstein posed could be directed toward god, meaning we do not have sufficient knowledge or scope to answer why there needs to be god , as that is a flawed instrument of us as humans, not of the truth : however it cannot successfully resolves these issues logically toward the means of a proof . since that is the framework this theory is attempting to compose itself within ... we can conclude it fails logically to provide sufficient reason ... Also in the face of uncertainty as i will demonstrate in the following example : (note this is my own original usage of Heisenberg's theory in this way..although it may have been discovered independently all work is mine and mine alone}
1. the problem is with this model is while he makes an admirable effort to prove the finititude to explain a reason of the purpose of god.... he leaves himself in the position of building a structure from the roof down with inferior tools . While he has expended all of his momentum to bring the explanation of the universe’s beginning to us, he has little reliability left to argue justifiably for the gods causation ( the two inverse values)... as he will run into incapability of his views on time.. if he resolves his time issue then the reason will get inversely flawed per Heisenberg.. impersonal religions manage to explain the why god exists thus negating the need for cause ( god is the universe and not separate from) making god as vague as possible . so support can always be added later for instance my own unified laws ,, god is the universe he is not seperate .. everything is god .. everything is the universe... however it runs into the inverse problem . The statement "god exists" is literally communicating nothing to us - and there will be no reason to accept it as rational, much less true.. if god is the physical laws.. once again the laws can do this on its on. This results in an needed extra step once again .. if god is universe itself and the universal laws, why does the universe need a god ?.. is fails on the how god needs a reason to be their in the first place 2... Still as i said in a previous post to you , if i was to pray it would be to the unified field ; an impersonalist could assume me to be praying to their god , i make no assumption to the nature of this field and any consciousness it may or may not have so i would neither agree or nor disagree with them , saying instead that is an interesting approach to prove i do in fact believe in your god.. while i have never heard this type of reply between an impersonal theist and a scientist it may exist.. 3.... Once again though he could then attack the logic of theistic belief to need a god to exist , if the universe is already impersonal ; why does it need an impersonal god ?.... The dynamic model of cosmology( as i call my model) does not have these inverse restrictions built into to it in the same respect ,. because it has no extra step to justify.. It ignores the why because it is not relevant.. why are we here ?.. .. because the dynamic cosmological model is infinite that is why, and we are a manifestation of matter that will randomly occur over infinity as matter reorganize itself within temporal states of the infinite dynamic states.. subsequently i use the same answer for both questions,, while it is impersonal , it is not filled with any apparent logical contradiction , and thus requires less burden.....
so to conclude my last two posts
1.... the apologist viewpoint , does nothing to satisfy Occam razor of explaining an extra step without presupposing itself ( as well as the aforementioned problems within my posts)
2....craigs relational model is incompatible with kalams absolute values of time as demonstrated , yet he attempts to use it to construct his view point of an atemporal time and god , toward the goal of explaining " how " god can exist outside the universe but not why
a... this is not logical proof and neither is it even reasonable
b... it does nothing to explain why god is necessary and the universes forces are not
c.. all things being equal the burden of proof is on the theist as it adds one more part while attempting to argue for infinite series as it relates to caausality .. this is supported by occams razor
while occams razor is not proof that craig is incorrect is shows sufficient reason why he requires more reasonable and logical proof to explain himself and the uneeded extra step of god ,, and the subsequent contradiction of his view of time , these things prove that this framework fails at providing a logical reason to construct a transcendental , personal diety . I hope this shed some light on some of craigs most clever assertions and evolving flaws and why i see craig getting owned by a serious atheist
CM, I'm still going through your previous replies, so I'll likely only get back to you tomorrow, depending on how fast I can read. Also, unless you're James Still, could you please stop quoting others without citing them.
i do not quote any one becuase there were only a couple .. i mainly revised complied evidence from various sites and i say that in the first sentence .. i do not misrepresent this evidence as my own discovered evidence and my word choice is different all the way through .. but i will give him credit for the quotes
by the way may add a little tonight so please take you time replying if you want to reply
as i had to take a nap before writing my conclusions i spent a few hours on this as i have never really seriously entertained craig knowing it is nothing more than cosmological creationism with a few twists .. something i have never taken very seriously as it adds an needed part to the equations .. i had to read all of Craig's , kalams ; and apologist assertions as to get a better understanding where can attack it logically as it is attempting to provide a logical reason for god ,, but i think i have shown it not only fails to do this,, but also requires a larger burden of proof based on the very claims it makes
which is why an apologist would never they could do this logically anymore,, unless they are an uneducated one... although several times throughout history they have.. this still gets echoed today they probably would instead try to argue god is more likely to exist but i have also provided proof as why this requires a larger burden of proof bases on their own constructs
there is a link provided above which illustrates an interesting debate on this topic showing the apologist view as well , watch as it gets crushed .. at least 2 or 3 of the point i made are revisited there,, but note that is of course predicted as these are the basic historical premises for debunking this model as a logical reason
On May 09 2010 12:03 chessmaster wrote: i do not quote any one i merely complied evidence from various sites and i say that
You quoted James Still directly: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html. Compile evidence all you want, I would simply appreciate it if you made it known when others are speaking and not you (i.e. when you quote someone make it known, not just in the first sentence).
Edit* I'm still going through what you're saying, and doing research to bring me up to your level (at least non-mathematically), but won't be done before tomorrow. I've no doubt, you're a very bright individual.
I just woke up to someone, covered in blood and in a hospital gown, loudly saying my name and turning on the light in my bedroom..... not particularly relevant to the mysteries of the universe although at the time it seemed one!
Anyway, I read through your posts chessman, long but very interesting ^^, and it seems you have successfully demonstrated how Kalam's argument does not work for being sufficient, due to many inconsistencies, in proving God's existence. But it seems, and you concede this, that the current scientific understanding of the "before" (in terms of the universe) is in itself insufficient to show that Kalam's argument must be false, merely that the reverse is equally not established.
As such there seems no better reason (and this isn't a statement I'm putting as fact, more hoping someone will argue against it) to consider that the universe is it's own cause, or that cause and effect are irrelevant and meaningless in considering the origins of the universe, than to posit a neccesary God who causes our existence.
There is obviously the response "We cannot yet be so bold as to state that we have a good enough understanding of the "universe" to prove that it need not be caused, but we are working on it" Although this is no more useful to us, although slightly preferable, to the religious "Well, we'll find out when we die..... "
It is possible that my lack of knowledge on contemporary science about such things has made me make the above error, and in fact we can assert certain provable facts about the origins of the universe to show that it's existence is definitely not dependant on cause, in which case soz!
yeah well he is the one that attempts to use it to provide sufficient reason .. if he wants to play fair craig must open himself to the very rules he uses .. I think you re missing the point of this exercise // logic is not trying to prove or disprove god .. it is attempting to provide a logical reason to suppose their needs to be one as per cosmoly .. this is all kamal craig and the apologists are going for.. i think if you read my posts you would find the argument you are searching for .. it is not any instristic flaw in reason it is our instrumentation's vantage points flaw as per Einsteins explanation of the uncertainty principle ,, although we could also suppose hidden variables per de broglie
For instance we cannot get outside the universe if it has an edge ,, i.e fish bowl , or ant farm.. if we could do this and our laws could explain the processes ,, then reason would do fine from a purely theological sense i can also argue if we are truly created in gods image in a conscious sense .. there should be no reason for this claim .. i also might add there are many forms of logic . i.e formal , informal ,, fuzzy etc. not all are inclusive with each-other.. although craig is working within the realm of the Aristotelian type , i honestly might agree with you here this type may have trouble with it . it is not logic but our vantage point and knowledge .. logic does not = knowledge .. although both can be learned
sorry for the uber long posts but the reasons cannot be proven in short fashion .. there is just too much ground to cover
CM I'll get back to you tomorrow as I'm still reading (promise tomorrow, then you can refute me all day long ), in the mean time I wanted to clarify something and ask a question at the same time (you know, teach me rather than hit me in the head with a bat because you seem to think this is some sort of argument), as you seem to know what you're talking about.
As I understand you, you believe that the universe is eternal, and that in talking about the universe we should include the initial singularity (being that the universe is all things). Now, even if we assume "time" to behave "differently" in this singularity, I'm some what confused as to how this relates to the second law of thermodynamics. Namely why the big bang occurred at all, given that the singularity must have existed for an indefinite (extended?) period of time, rather than the singularity being "victim" to entropy. Now this assumes that the laws of nature are constants even in this singularity (though as I understand it, this is the point in which the laws of nature break down and are unrecognizable to us), so I'm sure my question doesn't even make sense, but I would ask if you could expand on that for me.
Of course, I'm entirely prepared for the answer (as you've said above) that you don't know what happened "before" the big bang, and that we simply don't have enough data to come to a conclusion one way or the other. This just doesn't make sense to me. If the universe is eternal, then why isn't it in a state of equilibrium, and if it is only finite, then it is not necessary and the singularity itself becomes a metaphysical quandary.
I really do appreciate your answers.
Edit* Also, could you explain to me what you mean by these two statements, I'm not following you:
(1)it is the laws of physics which are infinite and therefore so is time when all forces are unified .. time no longer exist as itr does in the universes current state when the universe is unified
--> I don't understand why the unification of the forces of nature remove time, or are you saying time becomes infinite, such that the singularity existed for an infinite amount of time? (I doubt this is what you're saying, but I've asked anyway.) Or that the universe once existed in a timeless state?
(2) universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal
--> I'm not following how the universe is its own cause because the laws of physics are internal (to the universe?). Are you saying the laws of physics themselves are eternal, and the universe is contingent upon them, or vice-versa?
First of all want to point out at this time i realize you are merely arguing this side for conversations sake and not because you believe the Craig model ...and i thank you for doing that ...otherwise there would be no discussion,
I also want to point out take as long as you want to reply .. this debate has been going on for centuries.. i do not expect us to resolve it in two days.. take your time , we do not get points for speediness, and if other poeple start another topic.... oh well..
To answer your question as i understand it ,,,,, yes i make no allowances as to how the universe behaves when the fields are unified because i have never observed this ... but craig does describe how it behaves by adding an extra "part" ,, then attempts to provide sufficient reason to justify this part needing to be there.... " ala Occam's razor " god is one extra part thus requires slightly more burden of evidence... all things being equal ,,,,the simpler explanation is more likely in a topic governed by reason... Still , since proving craigs model is insufficient , does not prove my is , i see why you want me to exaplin myself (however my excercise was merely proving the Craig model of god and time is not sufficient proof to give a reason for god to be necessary ) In the following post i will provide those reasons , both physical , logical, and metaphysical that the universe does not require a cause ( remember you asked)
As to keep this posts from becoming too long i will outline these reasons in the following post .. If you want a complete framework of the model i am currently working on and plan of publishing when it is complete , i think i would need to email it , it is just too much information to reasonably expect people here to want to read , but if i completely formalize that model i will need to provide my real name and a temporary intellectual property of authorship... ok on to the following post
I've always disagree'd with Occam's razor being employed in argument, at least in the sense "Occams razor dictates, therefore....". I personally believe it to have almost no bearing in metaphysical discussion, also "simple" seem's far too open to interpretation to be used as a basis for finding favour in two explanatory positions of the same phenomena.
On May 10 2010 17:55 chessmaster wrote: In the following post i will provide those reasons , both physical , logical, and metaphysical that the universe does not require a cause ( remember you asked)
As to keep this posts from becoming too long i will outline these reasons in the following post .. If you want a complete framework of the model i am currently working on and plan of publishing when it is complete , i think i would need to email it , it is just too much information to reasonably expect people here to want to read , but if i completely formalize that model i will need to provide my real name and a temporary intellectual property of authorship... ok on to the following post
The two basic properties of the " why " and "how" i view as being inversely proportionate unknowns per uncertainty principal ... all forms of God , be they transcendental or impersonal , attempt to resolve these by focusing the momentum on one question or another. Adding an extra part to the universe , or separate from it . To adequately show my model we need context..
1.. The context we are examining in this section of the Dynamic Model.......
A .. while answering the "Why" so far either position gives us one of two answers...... 1... God created it 2... for no reason .... because it exists
B ... this model will provide a third answer to the "Why " based on the following assumptions
1...singular events within reality (everything) need a cause 2. The synergistic sum of everything does not need a cause 3. cosmological creationism does not take (2) into account in any of its forms
C... claim number one : The third answer proposed to the " Why " will demonstrate the universe does not " need" a cause
1..... this will address the assertions of William Lane Craig, Kamal , Aquinas , T. D Sullivan , and their following premise
( 1) the universe can begin to exist only if it has an external cause (this cause is identified, after further augmentation , with God).
No further context is needed.... let us begin......
( readers note : I am only dealing with causation as it pertains to answering the "Why " to " How" does not need an extra cause my model is much larger , and deals with a significant number of other things with "How" more thoroughly . Inversely I give sufficient " How" here to justify " Why" without needing an extra part. I give some principles that are based on advanced calculus and physics / for the most part i will not provide the calculus . you will either have to take my assertions at face value , or work through the calculus yourself , as i am not writing a book on this forum , but it will be provided within my publishing
The Dynamic model and causation by chessmaster ...
note: (part of this is an improvement on Quentin Smiths model as he does not reconcile time and matter effectively at Time=0 in face of planck-time meaning his infinite set will not function past planck-time unless he explains it is possible .. I use T/0=Unified instead , and further more the action of the Dynamic Multiverse for the interaction of the cosmological-constant with gravity ,but i was inspired by it some 10 years ago)
Priori premises and causation
1...singular events require causation 2..." The sum of Everything " within our dynamic manifestation(universe) can exist without cause 3...reality exists 4. There may be multiple Universes 5 There are no hidden variables / or rather the interaction between separate universes would explain the appearance of them ( and we will equate the usage of hidden variable in craigs sense as god )
Support of priori (2)
I . Newton and simultaneous action at a distance
1....Newtons provides examples of instantaneous communication between bodies with gravity
a. each body in motion at T is simultaneously effected by objects at T b. state S1 being caused by another state S2, with S2 being simultaneously caused by S1.
2...This is supported hundreds of years later by Einsteins general relativity but viewed as a curvature of space not a field .. this is also supported by my previous example of E.P.R paradox .
3.. Quantum Physics views the mechanism as a particle called the graviton . As the graviton is a function of space-time it can travel faster than the speed of light . this does not violate relativity., while it shows matter cannot travel faster than light , it does not prevent space-time itself from accomplishing this . or other zero-mass boson like states and virtual particles 1. this will support the later (VI) and lend mechanism in tandem with T/0=U , as it allow for smaller time intervals than the plank-scale
II. confirmation of Action at a distance and the paradox of E.P.R ( some call this the most profound discovery in physics)
A. Action at a distance shows the violation of one or more priori assumptions E.P.R claims using contradiction logic .Bell used the E.P.R's following assumptions to condradict.
II. the original experiment was purely theoretical as the technology did not exist to perform experimentation , and resulted in two exceptions
1. detection loophole 2 .the communication loophole . A....In the 1980's the experiment was moved from the thought realm into the laboratory as the technology was available .... these loopholes may now be thrown out..( I had to provide (II) and as you might read outdated material , namely the authors of the E.P.R paper , which would waste time arming you with these loopholes that no longer exist ) B. Interference pattern experiment shows forces from separate universes can interact and exist 1. this is the manifestation of dynamic states interacting ( multiple universes)
III. By violating E.P.R we can assume one or more of its assumptions are wrong
1. reality does not exist 2. not everything is local A..there are not hidden variables B...infer multiple universes per locality being violated (1) this could be viewed as the interaction of multiple universes)
IV. everetts multi-verse and the dynamic mechanism ( meaning not only have i shown simultaneously forces can interact , but this shows the forces from other universe can also interact with the forces from our own .. this can be shown in the interference experiment and the E.P.R violation
1... The multi-verse gives reasonable explanation for a dynamic state and its mechanism
VI.. Identity of particles and priori assumptions
1. matter can move between singular states 2. singular-state matter is not eternal 3. matter is eternal through reorganization from one dynamic state to another or between states of the dynamic multi-verse 4. matter is expressed by one or more forces of the unified field 5. gravity and anti-gravity(cosmological constant) maybe the the interaction of multiple universes dynamically interacting
VI... Metaphysical implications
1. if it is physically necessary that physical objects instantaneously interact with each-other then it becomes metaphysically logical and necessary
2. let T/0 = time and W,X,Y,Z = U, separate unified-force-states and parts of the unified field internal to this universe (space/time, strong /weak nuclear force , electricity/magnetism , gravity/anti-gravity )
A... The Atemporal universe at T /0= U is temporal parts , W,X,Y,Z...
B. Each of these time-states of the forces exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the four time-states of one of the other four unified force-states as per priori (IV) and (V).. C Let T/0= time at manifestation of a singular dynamic state and U=unified-field
1... If the universe at T/0 = U is W, X.Y,Z 2.. as each forced is caused to begin to exist by another force internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but by its internal forces 3. This and previous physical proofing justifies the claim that while singular events require a cause , "everything" that exists does not i.e the infinite universe 4. this describes the change between the last state and this state A.. However we discover without further description i run into a problem at T=0 B .The following section will deal with this problem while also giving secondly support to priori (VI )-[B]-(3)
VII.. infinite series , and overcoming T/0=U /planck time and priori values
1. time is continuous in the first manifested state of space-time 2, The First time state of one or more force is an "open-interval" to the other forces 3. unified-fields creates smaller units than planck- time toward infinite series/ per the quantum model of "thermodynamics" (now we come to this word usage thermodynamics , i meant in a quantum sense not a relative one .This should help answer your questions) A. as the laws of physics break down, smaller units than planck-time can occur B. [A] is an abstract object of T/0 C. From the unified-field, then there is no first instant that immediately follows the hypothetical ‘first instant’ T/0 =U. This is because between any two instants, there are an infinite number of other instants. 4 . T/0 = U. example, we use the value 4/8 for simplicity .But in this model it equals an abstract value less than planck-time/space 5. Between T=U and 4/8 there is 2/8 . Between T=0 and 2/8 there is 1/8 and so on and so forth to infinity 6 . this demonstrates how time is infinite at T=U and every the first instant of our current universe state is followed by a previous state 7 .this is expressed by the function of the following open/interval-integral 0> x £ 1 8.this shows that while singular events require a cause . T=U (everything) does not require a cause 9.the interval-integral or set , is an ontological view 10. This model does not have to be intuitive to function as sufficient reason / and craig can sleep fine at night , i do not need any psychotropics
Conclusion
it is now both physically , and metaphysically possible to believe the principle of causality , and also believe the universe is its own cause while simultaneously interacting with other universe states visa vi the graviton/antigravity mechanism or other zero-mass bosons . as causality only describes singular events "within" space-time , not " everything at once" of course you might ask why the singularity of our universe chose to make a universe an not lets say Bill Clinton inhaling a joint . all i can say is i do not know , because it happened. While this is impersonal , it does not require an extra part...however while it interacts with other universes it cannot be said to be caused by them , this allows for the dynamic states to be infinite in expression
* ok breath* i do not expect a response of this .. if you wish to communicate on my model in detail i maybe should provide , e-mail so the calculus does not get out of control on this forum ,and we could continue to explore it in detail there .. though we could consider it a part of critical thinking lol i do not think people want to stare at integrals and strange looking physics formula shapes
i do not expect a response on this as it might take you a while to learn and understand all of this .. it took me years ..either you can take it at face value . or work through it . but it provided sufficient reason to justify the claim the universe can escape causality , other people have approached this from a slightly different angle . but since Alain Aspect’s confirmation of bells inequality , and the numerous independent ones over the last decade, this is usually used toward this means in whatever model you are using , be it a single universe or a multiple , one . While Quentin smith argues from a single universe state in this particular "third question" model , i add a mechanism for the possibility of multiple dynamic universes interacting visa vi the graviton and other virtual particles i describe this furthermore as a manifestation of folded -dimensions in space time(calibi yau -space) , in the "how " section of this paper ....and interference experiment ala everett , but it is not contingent on this possible simultaneously .and i gave only as much as was needed to metaphysically consider it here ..
* ok breath* i do not expect a response of this .. if you wish to communicate on my model in detail i maybe should provide , e-mail so the calculus does not get out of control on this forum ,and we could continue to explore it in detail there .. though we could consider it a part of critical thinking lol i do not think people want to stare at integrals and strange looking physics formula shapes
i do not expect a response on this as it would take you quite a while to learn and understand all of this .. it took me years ..either you can take it at face value . or work through it . but it provided sufficient reason to justify the claim the universe can escape causality , other people have approached this from a slightly different angle . but since Alain Aspect’s confirmation of bells inequality , and the numerous independent ones over the last decade, this is usually used toward this means in whatever model you are using
That is quite brilliant, from what I understood of it (it will take me a few reads). If this is getting published in full, let me know where I can get my hands on it, it's very, very interesting. If you want to discuss this further, I'll PM you my email. But know that the mathematical portions of this proof will be beyond me.
btw xelin the reason occams razor works here is becuase of all things being equal which they are here.... the theists are using the same universe we are and the same laws...the only thing that has changed is another separate part that cannot be explained...that is why it requires more evidence,,
example .. if they are going to use the current cosmological evidence to presuppose god . and give no reason for there to be one .. when the current cosmology does not require one .. Then occams razor does work effectively .. but so does common sense
it would be like saying 1+1=3 without giving the extra 1 and claiming my 1+1=2 requires less proof as it reasonably explains itself and does not require anything else to be necessary
thx man .. i cannot claim i came up with the " third question " i got it from quentin smith but i improved upon it as it seems i know more about physics maybe than he does .(not). he forgot about plank time and why the time values cannot get infinitely smaller in face of this or maybe since it is just an simple essay as a reply ,, he does not get to deep into it
but i will be publishing it under a pseudonym as since i lack both a finished degree in either philosphy or physics and am self taught from my advanced calculus ,, and philosophy minor no one would take it seriously... damn egomaniacs wont listen to you without credentials but my physicists name will be on it that i work with as to get poeple to look at it
On May 11 2010 03:32 chessmaster wrote: thx man .. i cannot claim i came up with the " third question " i got it from quentin smith but i improved upon it as it seems i know more about physics maybe than he does .. he forgot about plank time and why the time values cannot get infinitely smaller in face of this
but i will be publishing it under a pseudonym as since i lack both a finished degree in either philosphy or physics and am self taught from my advanced calculus ,, and philosophy minor no one would take it seriously... damn egomaniacs wont listen to you without credentials
Have you had it reviewed by physicists already, or going to publish it first to wait and see? Logically it seems tight (I don't see any holes), but I think you might be objected to on the nature of the singularity itself, if you're proposing that it existed timelessly. But that just might be because of my not fully understanding you. I can see that I'm going to have to become interested in physics.
It would require more evidence to establish, but that does not make it any more likely or unlikely.
Also the notion of simplicity or "more parts" having bearings on evidential proofs e.t.c is only meaningful in the universe as we experience it today. Weras I think your applying it to the pre big bang e.t.c "universe".
true true .. i am just applying occams razor to discussion , but that's why i leave it out of my model it is not evidence in itself,, Instead it would be used whether or not god is likely
note i forgot to add a section in (II) adding further support for the multiverse i added it
p.s yes in a theory like this would require very specific predictions .. more so than even relativity because i am making physical claims not just metaphysical ,,, i have support from E.P.R paradox , the interference experiment fro the multiverse and dynamic interaction ,, i have infinite intervals and integrals .. and i have unified field to explain how intervals of time can reach and infinite set
but since I am not an overly serious physicist i am not able to realize the predictions this would imply so i cannot experiment .. also one or more of my assumptions may need to be tweaked , ,,, however in light of the current large hadron colliders ,, these predictions could be shown if i knew what they were .. lmao .. which is why i may have to try to catch a physicists eye and hope we can work together .. because the one i have worked with is veryt specialized in low energy feilds only ,,, and he cannot make alot of predictions about this ..he has helped me satisfy it , in the sense it should be working in light of my secret equation ( i will not be providing ..need some secrets)
This is why i will use a pseudonym , most wouldn't even look at it otherwise
edit .. i always forget stuff sorry / the forgetful philosopher
sorry did not see your question .. my uncle has a P.H.D in electrical engineering and he reviewed it for me .. he claims all my logic based on the physics is solid , and is helping me with the prediction stage right now / for the last 2 years !!!!! it is not so easy becuase this math is wayyyyyyyy beyond my advanced calculus .. it is just sick , and a lot of it is beyond his phd level engineering as he is not focused in physics , and one physicist may not be enough .. i am using relativity , the quantum model ,and the multiverse model , and i could even through in string M- theory as it allows fro a multiverse to , but i do not use string theory as currently there is no way to experiment with string theory , but really t is my favorite, i wish i could , to me it is the most beautiful as a musician ,, vibrating strings really appeals to me
p.s it is a shame we do not live for longer , in light of getting to be a fide master, my double major , writing my novel , and working on this , ( continuing to learn new instruments)
i just di not have enough time to do them all and i am constantly juggling them ,, plsu hang out online and play starcraft and shit
luckily the worst part abnout my life is the best .. i have liver disease and am currently disabled and in therapy so i have nothing but freetime
but do not worry the treatment is working and it should be cured in several more months .. at least i am like 90 percent for that now ,, the treatment is working
that last dynamic model proof i have already poor man copywrited so i can prove the pseudonym is me ,,, included the pseudonym i will use and that model in a post dated letter and mailed it to myself ,, lol i have been holding on to this letter for 3 years ,, so luckily if someone publishes the same ideas or values even in different terms .. i can prove i thought of it first and claim intellectual property
unfortunately my relative Emile Borel is no longer alive , because he would know tons of poeple to help , but lol alot of these theories did not exist then
Yes, it really is quite a nice model. Nice to hear that you're doing well, I had cancer and liver disease for quite a fear years, so experienced (and still do) that "free time" you talk of. Except, well, I couldn't afford school so I was "stuck" with a lot of books and self-education. Unfortunately not in this area, though I think I'm going to start. Right as soon as I get through the completed works of Jonathan Edwards...
really man ? man who would have known we had so much in common , Bro good luck with that how is that going with the cancer ,, you over it ? what about the liver disease? geeae i never would have guessed this whole time we were talking we knew the same pain of existence , i feel suddenly a lot closer to you even though i have never met you in person,, these are the reasons i just love the internet , i can meet people i have things in common with , and have these discussions .. to be honest i am in a poor mood sometimes , and catch myself being cranky and dickish here sometimes and will try to work on that. there are some really cool poeple on this site , while i never come out and cuss at poeple , and call them names , i can get aggressive in an ever increasing subtle way , that makes it almost worse because i tried to cloak it in that
and believe me i am not saying i do not consider god sometimes or at least see why there should be one from a personal feeling .. the intuition craig speaks of part of me can relate to , after having this disease i understand the need to entertain one
but "when" i do consider god ( i should put it this way because i do not have a particular faith , i go back and forth on what i want to consider , i generally prefer the impersonal type ....as it makes more sense to me
other wise we are like an antfarm on a shelf somewhere ,, or even a dream in someones head.. now if it is a personal god , i prefer dream in the head , and we are not even here , as once again it just makes more sense , i cannot make myslef believe we are in an ant farm or like inside a marble being used in a game of giant aliens like Men in Black the movie
for me it is easier to resolve the "how" and let god worry about the " why " if a god exists ,,, i do not have people to talk about this stuff usually so i must play my own devils advocate
On May 11 2010 04:31 chessmaster wrote: really man ? man who would have known we had so much in common , Bro good luck with that how is that going with the cancer ,, you over it ? what about the liver disease? geeae i never would have guessed this whole time we were talking we knew the same pain of existence , i feel suddenly a lot closer to you even though i have never met you
and believe me i am not saying i do not believe in god sometimes, after having this disease i understand the need to entertain one
but when i do believe in god ( i should put it this way because i do not have a particular faith , i go back and forth on what i want to believe , i generally prefer the impersonal type ....as it makes more sense to me
other wise we are like an antfarm on a shelf somewhere ,, or even a dream in someones head.. now if it is a personal god , i prefer dream in the head , and we are not even here , as once again it just makes more sense , i cannot make myslef believe we are in an ant farm or like inside a marble being used in a game of giant aliens like Men in Black the movie
for me it is easier to resolve the "how" and let god worry about the " why "
I was "cured" of the cancer 5 years ago, which means I just (just!) finished follow up treatment, appointments, etc. That in itself was a lot of not feeling well. And the liver disease was before that though through "something" it's seemed to clear up over the course of the last few years, assuming I exercise and don't eat anything with fat / sodium, etc. But it definitely was not "fun".
Interestingly (I guess?) also wasn't the reason I became a theist, I find meaningless to be a more comforting thought than knowing there is meaning to life (strange, eh?). In a lot of ways, it's all what you make it, I suppose (but not in every way). I did a lot of "my" reading on philosophy, comparative religious studies, ethics (bioethics and virtue theory especially) and theology. Which is the reason I'm familiar with the scientific models you proposed, but not intimately familiar with them. I also read a lot of Plato and "Socrates" and learned from the latter that I really don't know all that much... Which is why I prefer questions. But given the right topic my pride will get the better of me, and I'll talk, and talk, and talk...
he he he he .. man this is why i love these types on internet discussions ,, because most people will not sit still and listen to these types of things in person ( at least the type that will are very hard to find) , they will interrupt , and the conversion will evolve .. or if you refuse to let it evolve they will get angry because they feel left out while an evolving conversation has its own benefits and i enjoy them .. sometimes i want to formulate an entire concept and then have it replied to ,, it seems most poeple today just lack this skill , or refused to learn how to do that ,,,
i could listen to people like you and xelin talk for hours on end ,, this shit is fascinating to me . so go ahead and do all the talking you want .. i did i will read it all , in that you have my word , not only that i will gladly do it , and as i have already posted my ideas . there will be no need to argue anything , unless you choose a side for me to debate as you chose craigs and kamals for yourself .. you can present and idea ,, and ask me to argue as different one for you if you want , i will gladly do it
someday because of medical advancements people will be able to live for thousands of years possibly , ironically most will still not be able to sit still for five minutes
but yes i also have a huge ego , and a very emotional side and both get the better of me quite often
yeah , also i switch back and forth ,, some times it is the meaningless that gives me comfort , sometimes it is the meaning , i am a romantic by nature , but also a skeptic if this makes any kinds of sense ,, i have so many different sides to myself , i honestly think i may be a combined twin or something , my very nature makes no sense at all , i realize this is true for most poeple , people like us have alot of interests and not enough time ,
i am really glad to hear your treatment worked , and hope the post treatment goes well for you ,, keep it up it seems you are home free
i gotta get some exercise speaking off ,, gonna take a walk down the beach ,,, take care bro's , and thank you for taking the time to read my posts ,, i will be back later if i see ya then coolio if not catch ya on the flip side , if you posts any of you ideas i will gladly look at them and give my thoughts , i will check in in a few hours
On May 11 2010 04:53 chessmaster wrote: he he he he .. man this is why i love these types on internet discussions ,, because most people will not sit still and listen to these types of things in person or at least the type that will are very hard to find , they will interrupt , and the conversion will evolve .. or if you refuse to let it evolve they will get angry because they feel left out while an evolving conversation has its own benefits and i enjoy them .. sometimes i want to formulate an entire concept and then have it replied to ,, it seems most poeple today just lack this skill , or refused to learn how to do that ,,,
i could listen to people like you and xelin talk for hours on end ,, this shit is fascinating to me .
someday because of medical advancements people will be able to live for thousands of years possibly , ironically most will still not be able to sit still for five minutes
but yes i also have a huge ego , and a very emotional side and both get the better of me quite often
yeah , also i switch back and forth ,, some times it is the meaningless that gives me comfort , sometimes it is the meaning , i am a romantic by nature , but also a skeptic if this makes any kinds of sense ,, i have so many different sides to myself , i honestly think i may be a combined twin or something , my very nature makes no sense at all , i realize this is true for most poeple , people like us have alot of interests and not enough time ,
i am really glad to hear your treatment worked , and hope the post treatment goes well for you ,, keep it up it seems you are home free
i gotta get some exercise speaking off ,, gonna take a walk down the beach ,,, take care bro's , and thank you for taking the time to read my posts ,, i will be back later if i see ya then coolio if not catch ya on the flip side , if you posts any of you ideas i will gladly look at them and give my thoughts , i will check in in a few hours
I'll cherish the day I go up to someone and say, "Do you have a couple hours to spend talking about the great questions" and they say "Actually, yes". So far I've only gotten blank stares and the occasional, "What are you, a weirdo?" No one seems to want to talk about it anymore, strange that I should have to retreat to the internet to get decent discussion. I could talk about this all day, I don't see many other things which are more important. I think, actually, you and I have had our perspectives radically changed, and we would probably fit in much better 1,000 years ago than today (in some ways, but not all).
Good luck with your day, I have some Quentin Smith to read (and maybe a debate or two of his to watch). And yes, not enough time in my life for all the things I want to do... Hmm. I'll try to come up with something to reply to your model, but as it stands there is a lot of reading I have to do to say anything adequate. But I can learn in weeks what most people learn in years (depending on the subject, physics... not so much), so I think it's fine
ok .. if you want as i said ... i will take up any side of any topic of your choosing for you to argue against , but i may have to read up on it first that goes for you to xelin or anyone reading this .. i do not mind playing devils advocate here.. lets keep this philosophy train rolling
On May 11 2010 11:53 FraCuS wrote: this has totally changed my view on god.
That's good if it has, whatever "direction" you've taken from the position you were in. If you don't mind me asking, what was your view before, and what is your view now?
On May 11 2010 11:53 FraCuS wrote: this has totally changed my view on god.
That's good if it has, whatever "direction" you've taken from the position you were in. If you don't mind me asking, what was your view before, and what is your view now?
i really don't feel comfortable answering sorry this is overwhelming.
yeah xelin i agree now that i have thought on it i am attempting to use this rational common sense guideline toward naturalistic observation ... let me elaborate now that i have thought on it , i also the pro position of craig could point out i am contradicting myself ...
1 occams razor is an rational , intuitive guideline in science , not a proof 2 i use occams razor 3. i criticize craig for using intuition toward sufficient reason ( although his must be considered the moral or spiritual type ,
many counter-intuitive things are true both in math and in nature while most people confuse occams razor with meaning = all things being equal the simplest is the most likely ( which i am admitting is how i posed it .. that was incomplete ) My interpretation of it is more specifically all things being equal the simplest answer that does not contradict known facts is the more likely.... still we must examine the word "known" from and observational standpoint
everyone used to know the earth was flat ,, " of course it is flat " one would say .." all known facts " point toward this..of course they could even have based this on Occam razor( though it did not exist yet ) , even though ancients knew it was round , and that knowledge was somehow lost in the dark ages ... facts in the sense of an unobservable system , can often be misleading .... in light of these considerations of the misleading nature of common sense , human nature . and observable facts , or what is currently accepted to be a fact ,,, maybe i should have left this out of my arguments ... .. suffice to say the razor is flawed , but it can be useful at certain times pragmatically, however probably more in a controlled environment not a naturalistic one , as all variables could be known or controlled ........ then it could be applied more reasonably , i am attempting to use it in a naturalist model where not everything is known ....
so in this context i must agree with you , i should not have used it ,,, i will have to find something else with to attack the extra part with ,,, maybe conversation of matter ...i will have to think on this but thx for pointing it out..otherwise it would not have started my mind to working
article tells you the only two conclusions about gravitons .. either they can travel faster than light or they do not exist ...... relativity does allow for zero mass particles like tachyons and gravitons to travel than faster than light
i suggest you read these quotes from your wiki article and try again to understand what it means ....
" This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum of "matter "results in subsequent alteration of the gravitational field which it produces. "
" physical interaction in Nature "
relativity or the very classical model itself you present does not prevent zero mass functions or particles from traveling at faster than light or space-time itself from does this( as a matter of fact the big-bang or inflation theory requires for space to do this during the inflation ... i suggest you read up on it again and try harder to understand it ,,,, ,, try to pay attention to words like "physical " "within nature" " mass" " interaction "
one simple proof of this is if gravitons did not travel faster than light black holes would not produce gravity because the particle would never escape the event horizon ..so ether they do not exist ,, or they travel faster than light , and zero mass particles are a direct function of space-time in the model i propose ,, i propose space does have infinite energy at every point through bohm implicate order
just because it does not like it ,, does not mean it does not support my claim that gravitons in theory travel faster than light..
you are disagreeing with my quote gravitons can travel faster than light .. you have failed to support this you very wiki link does not even discuss this ,, i have managed to support this .. if you do not like a con argument try the second pro
i am unbiased so i provided both
the con argument says either they do not exist or they travel faster than light unless the universe has infinite energy ,, i provide that infinite energy with the implicate model( holographic model) or wheelers equations of singularities so i do a reverse contradiction proof here i so what in the world are you trying to disagree with ?
read your original post ,,, then read your ridiculous wiki link dealing with mass effected by gravity waves again.. and try to put these lasts few posts in context .. then please explain what in the world they have to do with each other
that is my question to you ,, what does that wiki article have to do with gravitons ? it is dealing with the interaction of two moving objects that contain mass .. ..
however this quite pointless discussion is really redundant as space time itself can travel faster than light according to relativity as well ,, and i have a third theory supporting my "how" question i did not even use in David bohms holographic model as i just explained above... i suggest you read up on the quantum model of gravity , point particles .. boson force interaction ,,,and string theory , and implicate , explicate orders //////we are talking about gravity on a plank level ,, not a macro-scopic one i think you are missing the point of the exercise .. i need some sort of transmitting for infinite sets in nature for T(0) =U .. while i only briefly mention zero mass bosons that was supposed to give logical reason ..... but without the rest of the how paper i can see at least partially how you would doubt this paradox helps me .. when in fact it does , i require infinite energy , i have it in face of a singularity ,and the point particle problem( which i veiw as a necessity)
So unless you can demonstrate it to be a mistaken argument, and in actuality an argument for your position, you can't just assert it and call it "case closed".
On May 12 2010 09:52 chessmaster wrote: just because it does not like it ,, does not mean it does not support my claim .. do you have a brain
you are disagreeing with my quote gravitons can travel faster than light .. you have failed to support this you very wiki link does not even discuss this ,, i have managed to support this .. if you do not like a con argument try the second pro
Actually, I only pointed out that the article you posted disagreed with you, rather than agreed. Read the user name
i am unbiased so i provided both
the con argument saysw either they do not exist or they travel faster than light
so what in the world are you trying to disagree with ?
read your original post ,,, then read your ridiculous wiki link dealing with mass effected by gravity waves .. and try to put these lasts few posts in contex
How do you avoid the caveat Janus asserted? That gravitons can only exist insofar as they can escape the pull of a black hole, but must disappear thereafter (thereby failing to transmit information)?
" About the speed of gravity. General Relativity, just like Special Relativity there is a maximum speed limit that anything cannot beat. This speed is c, which "happens" to be the speed of light in vaco. This already means that gravity could at best propagate at the speed of light. [I should point out that quantum effects such as vacuum polarisation in QED can allow photons to propagate faster than c on a curved space-time background!] "
ok... now consider a singularity and " faster than C (speed of light ) when space is curved .. a singularity is space that is so curved it is packed into an infinity small point but also i get deeper into with three types of dimensions open ,closed , and folded ... and pilot wave functions ... you must realize i am asserting non locality on an implicate level . and we are dealing with graviton on a quantum scale not reletivistic which current quantum theories support , and string theory
in my how paper the zero mass boson-like spin 2 force is an actual ingredient to space time and this is the mechanism of space curvature that causes gravity and it accomplish this in part with the theory of implicate order ... it also resolves the conflict between relativity and quantum quantum gravity , quite nicely... when i say graviton .. i am, describing the nature of space in light of how they act in black holes .. for what space can do when it needs to..and also i accept that we have infinite energy, as all universes are the sum of infninite universes .. connected through the implicate or impli-verse i will provide some more info the next few posts
i have edited these 4 posts to go together more fluidly .. as i really should have spent more time how to get this concept across ,,, there is just to much to go through so i need to stick to the basics
. gravitons nowhere in the paper are listed as a priori assumption.. you said and i quote " you blindly assert this " no i do not it is listed under the heading "support" for priori II and i quote " support"
simultaneous interaction is the priori assertions not that gravitons exits ..
the paper is not designed to prove the existence of gravitons ,,
you are correct that we can not use it to transmit information at faster than light,, but that has absolutely nothing to do with it as support for my claim.. that is nothing more than this example with E.P.R . in this experiment we will use entangled zero-mass spin 2 ..while a graviton .. this is called graviton entanglement .. this is how gravitons communicate at faster than light .. but relativity is saved by a paradox illustrated below ,, hence the title E.P.R paradox . or spooky action at a distance
mas A ---------------------- toward mass B
mass A is traveling at the speed of light with information encoded in entangled particles ,,,,,, mass B is a receiver ,,,, once the entangled particle reaches its destination the information will be simultaneously communicated between A and B,,, but since we cannot get the mass from A to B at faster than light ..we still cannot use it to transmit at faster than light in usage i.e mass b will still get it at the speed of light from mass A as the entangled particles close the distance at this speed the fact that the information is transmitted instantly does nothing to get it there faster... this assertion of yours is correct , but it has nothing to do with the fact i provide both entanglement and the possibility of a zero mass boson as support for simultaneous interaction on the quantum level ,,,, becuase even thohgh this does not get from A to B at faster than light singularity have no A to B ,, they have zero dimensions .. so the prpagation would be truely instaneous even in transfer ,, at least at the moment of infaltion ,, but i also escape this in light of all space in nature ,, through the implicate order of david dohm can allow for faster than light travel as well .. as a function of space time itself ,, and this deos not violate relativity ,,, relativity allows for space -time to do this
but my supposition is much more profound ... i am claiming mass A and mass B were never actually separate on an implicate level .. that locality is an illusion created by open dimensions and we are still in a zero dimensionl - open-state inside a singularity .. inflation is also an illusion
i hope this helps you understand read heading (II) again and read and how i quote " support for prioir two " and try to place the word support in context .. i only need to allow that things can simultaneously interact this is the priori so it is metaphysically logical that they can as well.. ironically newtons fields theory allows for this ,, the very wiki article you erroneously posted
also we are talking about the quantum level here as per and during big-bang .. newton deals with the macro scale , things over large distances ..... even though they both describe simultaneous interaction ,, he goes about it in a field sense,, so the very wiki article you provide .. if you take a little more time to read about newtonian field theory , you will discover it also allows for instantaneous interaction , this is what makes this so very silly to me
i already have E.P.R violation this is a performed experiment ,, entangled particles are beyond accepted ,,, they are tested and experimented on , the explanation is argued over but at least some aspect of e.p.r is violated
why do i go through all this support trouble to allow for this interaction ???,, well if you understood the paper you would have known ,, i need all the forces in the unified field to able to simultaneously interact ,,, so i provide support of this concept in a few separate ways) .. of which two are the most solid ...Newtonian gravity , .. and E.P.R paradox ( i leave a few more out to cut down content),,, ok??? the transmitting of information or gravity waves moving mass through space and it interacting with other mass //// it just is not relevant
the fact that some poeple do not like the solution of gravitons is irrelevant also..i can show as many more that do.. many poeple used to think the world was flat ,, did that make the con argument that it is round incorrect ? the contradiction assumes space does not have infinite energy .. i am describing it in its singularity state where it does have infinite energy , so this contradiction does not apply ,,, basically the argument the con paper makes ,, this is hwy i posted it so you could work through the logic of it , as it clearly spells it for you ,,,, either there is infinite energy for them to travel faster than light or they do not exist , since singularities have infinite energy this should not be a problem to follow the second part of that logic through " or they do not exist" all you have to do is reverse that however if you want to discuss whether gravitons exits i would be happy to , as this clearly was not the purpose of the very small portion of my two, separate, considerations on the why and how . it was a small and the least important forms of support of priori (II) even if you throw it out.... I ONLY HAVE TO SHOW IT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE TO ASSERT IT IS METAPHYSICALLY POSSIBLE IN A LOGICAL SENSE
i hope this helps clarify several of your misconceptions ........ and i will try to be more patient
EDIT " i re edited the last several; posts after gnosis question of the transmitting issue nd why it is not relevant , as a singularity behaves like a black hole ,.. i should once again not get frustrated so even if it disappears after the big-bang it does not matter .. but note. i am not so much supposing gravitons i am supposing in the case of infinite energies things can move faster than light through closed and folded diemsions.. classical theories will not shed to much light on this model as it is only describing what i would call open dimensions.. i have both wheelers equation of infinite singularities, and the implicate explicate order . i.e pilot waves( did not present that in the essay) ..but i also have e.p.r paradox to show simultaneous interaction is possible ,, and Newtonian field theory .. among others
once again these are support of prior assumption that simultaneous interactions are logical possible in the physical world so they must be in the metaphysical world .. this is all i am demonstrating .. nothing more on this priori must be considered
i am comparing that behavior to a zero -mass spin 2 boson just in this one case ,, this black hole scenario not to a graviton as it travels at light speed ,, i should have made this clear but i would have thought since you knew we where dealing with the big-bang namely a singularity this comparison would be evident as per wheeler a universal singularity has infinite energy ..
i hope this answers your questions about overcoming the gravitational constant at least metaphysically and philosophical .. lest just say on the physical side on the how side. i need this new equation to make it logical , otherwise well lets just say otherwise there is a huge problem and i never in a million years would have solved it alone
On May 11 2010 11:53 FraCuS wrote: this has totally changed my view on god.
That's good if it has, whatever "direction" you've taken from the position you were in. If you don't mind me asking, what was your view before, and what is your view now?
I am also curious about how your view on God has changed FraCuS
His definition of reason is biaised since he say that it is not based on emotion, which is wrong. There is a book about this, the mystake of descartes i think, showing how reason is linked to emotion in the humain brain (like spinoza said in his time).
yeah truth and perceptions are interesting .. when did we get back on that ????? even academic skeptics allow for some truth they would just doubt you could ever know them or teach them if you did ... although they might agree you could learn a function of probability as it pertains to behavior but the Pyrrhonism type would doubt even that .. but i am an empiricist and i do not really agree in whole with Descartes , but that is just me .. i prefer the epistemological view on things , am big into experienced learned knowledge and i exactly oppose Descartes in this sense , although i would put a small emphasis on rationalism in thr fomr of lets say instinct .... etc another point take improved instrumentation for instance which did not really exist in Descartes's day ...the telescopes that existed ,, could only close the distance in objects .. but not bring them into more detail focus wise past what ones own eyes could already perceive .. meaning yeah it will close distances visually ,, but no section will be in any more detail than if you were standing next to it .. that is pretty much the only empirical instrument they had .. except fro maybe scales for weight ,, which could be considered touch i guess .. and sight ... did not have a complete context view on measurements though ...... metric was not even invented until two centuries after Descartes .. so he really was limited technology wise , as far as what he could even imagine what some day we would be able to perceive ,,, a couple of hundred years later humans started to get an idea of these things
ones again i am an empiricist i directly oppose Descartes i cannot see on the micro -level but that does not mean i cannot use a improved sense of eye-sight in the form of a microscope ... even further i can perform spectral analysis on objects to see which range they admit or reflect as yet another form- of my senses ...and this is only the eyes we have smell . ears and improved forms of all were are perceiving .. the microscope would also provide more detail on the touch level at certain settings as to perceive surface detail so we are converting " better sight " to better "touch "... .....basically we can convert one sense to another via instrumentation.........Descartes is too limited in my opinion.. of course we must realize back then these tools did not really exist ,, the sense you were born with was all you really had .. so it makes sense back then .. the telescopes were very limited and of course not beyond what the eye can make out detail-wise ,, would just allow it to be seen from farther away .. but not in any more detail so you could not perceive anything new aout the object you are perceiving that you could not up close to it.... and microscopes were not being made until just after his death .. and were not making great improvements until at least a century after his death
when you consider this ... it is not to hard to understand why Descartes would think that ...... but the empiricists take this into account .. one can improve their perception , and use that improvement to observe and experiment .... Descartes did not realize this in his day ,, that these types of technologies would exist ,, if he had i believe he would have rethought this possibly if he didn't all i could say is .. well i still disagree with Descartes , i follow empiricism
anyway how did we get on the definition of reason ? .. and when did Descartes prove anything as the end all be all authority on it ? as far as i know there are a lot of schools of thought on this matter that disagree with each-other .. his is merely one .. you are writing this post as some kind end all be all lthough you could of written it from the position "I" disagree with you because of this and start a discussion .. but who are you disagreeing with ? and what notion of reason ? like reasoning something ? or a reasons for something to happen i.e cause and effect? i am a little confused i must admit of the context you are showing this in , as you did not provide a quote . of who said what and where
on a side note i need to work with someone who specializes in all of these forms ,, so we can start forming a philosophical view on perception and truth ,, as a model like this would predict how infinities all around you and inside of you would effect a conscious mind i have one really crazy ass metaphysical concept that just both intrigues and immensely bother me . i will not get into it here do not want to get too off topic , or make this too much content ion light of all my other huge posts
as i am only really in depth with a few , and while i have a shallow understanding of most , i am am extremely under-qualified for this
edit .... ok i am done editing this post .. i usually need to rethink and rewrite them so i say exactly what i am trying to ,,, and i am the forgetful philosopher so i almost always leave something out ,,,,,,, this is finished feel free to reply..
"Truth" is something that greatly changed during the XIXth century. George Orwell, while he was a journalist during the spanish revolt, used to warn his readers about the disparition of the "objectiv truth". For him, objectif truth was disappearing due to manipulation (like in 1984 when the government says something, it is truth, even if it is the contrary of what they said a minute ago).
Objectiv truth is indeed disappearing of the political game. Today, truth is more a question of language... When you have a certain language (high social class) you can create what bourdieu used to call an effect of truth (un effet de vérité), and that is the only truth acceptable in the public space.
For my part, I think objectiv truth is what you feel, and nothing else. When you feel that you are poor, you are poor, even if some economist come and show you that if you compare your situation to a little african, you're freaking rich.
For me, logic is most of the time nothing more than an effect of truth, real truth does not need explication nor justification. Logic is only usefull to understand why something is true or not, not the opposite.
Well, when i read myself i feel like a terrible geek coming directly from scientology. I'm not that moronic in real life really.
yeah as i said i am an empiricist by nature .. and you do kionda present descartes as it is a mathematical proof ,,, but then you question the very nature of these types of assertions that is the paradox of descartes .. iof nothing can be known outside himself .. how does he know that to be true for anyone else ? asw he can only sense his own reality .. how does he know my reality does not contain superioir perception through superior intellect ,, that is kinda assuming all brains are created equally
but anyway you did not anser my question ,, who said "reason "
and it what " sense " of the word
what is the context ,, you do not provide a quote
while i understand positions like these .. i do not agree with it it contradicts itself .. kinda like socrates saying the only thing he knows is he does not know anything ,, well if he knows nothing how does he know that ? by his own logic that would be wrong
but i love socrates ,, the best antagonist in philosophy .. he just fucks with people so well gets them to agree with something then induces some crazy way to make them contradict them selves
however he fails in mixing deduction and induction resulting in fallacy sometimes ,, he just hides his fallacies very well or cloaks them
while i agree with his descartes as far The basic premise of ideological sabotage and starting from a point of perception being zero is correct in my opinion, at least ... however valuable that is
but then he contradicts himself on his first argument arguing ultimate truth from god and his secon argument as well
I do not see that perfect cause (at least in a rationalist analysis of our exitsence, as the one Descartes pretends understand and to do): perfection is a "man-made" idea and it's applied always loosely to different various levels of relative perfection (always imperfect, when measured by absolutes). basically perfect is a man-made conception .. ( beauty is usually symmetry to us humans .).
this first argument contradicted by his very " sabotage argument"
while he made a bold statement that changed modern philosophy in my opinion it was incomplete and too materialistically dominated .. i propose non locality which open a whole new can of philosophical worms ,,,,,, and he try to hard to mix god into it ....and only results in contradicting himself via his first argument and also his second the argument is truly fallacious and directed more by conviction of his beliefs. in my opinion i cant say what motivated him to create that fallacy ,, probably the times he lived in , and fear of being burned at the stake //// or he really believed in a transcendental creator that is personified on a cloud somewhere ,, and wanted to include it regardless of it forcing a contradiction
I don't really understand your question because I can't read all your post since I'm at work and it sucks like hell
Descartes was not just a philosopher, he was (un érudit ? translation please) someone who was touching everything. I think you are mystaking two things: first the cartesian spirit, which is the base of descartes' philosophy, is the idea that you should doubt everything and then build your conviction on reason. Then he gives the definition of reason, not based on emotion, "only" logic. Here he is making a mystake (that's not my point of view); a neurologist proved that emotion participate to reason and that she could also assist the processus of reasoning. On the other side, the cogito ("i think so i am") is merely a syllogism built to explain that he is indeed conscious (since he is doubting everything). And it is also a mystake because the man is a social animal to simply put it.
I will try to explain my point better when I have the time.
Descartes was a great philosopher because he was the first that said that you should doubt everything, even god, not because of the cogito which is a big fail in my point of view.
he contradicts himself in his second argument as well .. i know what he was .. does not change that you present what he says as fact and it is not .. it is your opinion
you do not have to explain it .. i fully understand descartes .. and how he contradicts himself i do not require a history lesson
" this post from you and i quote
" His definition of reason is biaised since he say that it is not based on emotion, which is wrong. There is a book about this, the mystake of descartes i think, showing how reason is linked to emotion in the humain brain (like spinoza said in his time)."
this post comes out of nowhere and provides no context ... who are we talking about .. and what use of the word " reason "
what i9 am asking is ... are you taling about descartes ? or a poster here that uses the word reason ?
i give these long posts about my metaphysical model of the universe and then bam you give this post .. i am, trying ti undertsan what it means in context of this page
o ok .. you were talking about the vid guy ....... i was confused ,., i thought you were trying to prove someones view of reason on this page was bad and proving it by Descartes i was confused ... the post kind of comes out of nowhere ,, maybe i missed someone you were talking to because i was so self absorbed with my own posts
i am curious to hear different philosophical interpretations of this model like the one i proposed we could be a passing thought in an holographic mind , the big bang was a firing of a synapse lol if this was true , this would be my version of god ,
here is a link on graviton entanglement by the way shows faster than light interaction i never really explained E.P.,R paradox that in that mass A mass B post .. that mass A and mass B were gravitons .. i will edit that in
maybe to avoid these confusions i should have left the word graviton out ... as it is a controversial particle , and just left it at E.P.R paradox , and newtons action at a distance
above is a link on graviton entanglement by the way shows instantaneous interaction , but electron can also be entangled or photons positrons etc.. any boson can , among other particles as well ... you can also just Google entanglement , or E.P.R paradox and find your own links and interpretations i never really explained E.P.,R paradox that in that mass A mass B post .. that mass A and mass B were gravitons .. i will edit that in . we were of course assuming they exist in that mental experiment basically i outlined all those 7 posts into these last 2 , as they were not very well written and probably did more to confuse the real points i was trying to make
the issues i am focusing on here is : locality /// hubbels constant /// quantum and GR break downs....fine tuning issue( dark energy )
there was just to many different ways to try to explain it , and i found my posts too incoherent . and the issues i was covering not well outlined . this is not really outlined but at least continuous in nature .. that the question are followed by the explanations linearly , more or less to show how this model tackles the basic issues although there are many more smaller issues i have went through , some of which i showed on the above posts
Andre Linde models ,, of universes surprisingly similar to mine.. i was not aware of this this was published after i started working on mine
1. what causes the fine tuning problem ??????
all multiverse natural selection models are doing the same thing in one instance ... it is called the" fine tuning "problem in modern physics .. basically dark energy or whatever causes the Hubble constant .. or space to expand at an increased rate.... this is the effect of galaxies moving away from each other at faster than light speed according to the observer , this is what i meant about space-time itself accelerating faster than light i meant according to observation, you can view this like bread baking .. when we are at a singularity state pre big bang ,, the current analogy is usually described like this : our universe is a small piece of dough ,, then when we go into the oven the same mass of dough does not increase but does increases in volume while space inflates .. the light traveling through the dough while it also expands will appear to be moving at faster than light to observers when ti reaches certain red shift values, this process is called the rate of expansion or hubbles constant .., Einstein did not like it as it violated his original stance, but he was forced to reconsider and retracted his first cosmological constant that disagreed and changed it to allow space to do this for observers, and called his original CC the biggest mistake of his life , because Hubble's observations proved him wrong .. how do we know this ???? red shift ,,,,,, we take a certain value of light amplitude , like the gamma radiation electro-magnetic range of a super nova,, a huge supernova generally , or quasar accretion disc .. we know the output on these fairly well ,, so once we know the distance in parsecs.......we can judge its speed of expansion by the red shift blue shift that occurs ,, as light moves away from us it shifts red , and toward us it is blue shift ,, so if we know the value like say, a 60 watt bulb ,, we can judge its speed and distant by the shift as long as we know the output,, that is why we use things like super nova that we have seen within our own galaxy ,, we know their output reliably .. it seems space itself when curved or stretched can cause faster than light speed according to the observer .. that means there are galaxies we can no lounger see , they eventually get so far and fast that the light can no longer catch us and they disappear beyond our visible horizon , lost to us forever , as a result we have no idea how big our universe is farther than what our red shift limit flash light can see,,, /// it is compounding that as more dark energy is introduced into the system, and hubbles constant increases . it like a runner running on a track that gets longer while he runs it ... ,, over the years this has been accomplished with a theory of tension between gravity and the tension force being called dark energy equaling hubbles constant ,, this is the current leading theory anyway ... so the problem that arises is the fine tuning problem ,, where does the dark energy come from ,, what regulates it etc.. on the other hand in physics we have the central problem of entanglement and gravity ,, how does simultaneous interaction take place .. how does it work? . even if we do not view it as entangled , some thing simultaneous is occurring on the quantum level and observably on relativistic levels as well , so it must be explained some how ..ignoring it does no good , the only separate methods we have are reliable independent dogmatic approach such as GR and QM that work on inverse distance comparisons of macro and micro,. the only current theories that unify both well are various multiverse theories , M- string theories ... or holographic models ,,, the current standard model in my opinion is just a patched up dogma of local newtonian interaction , and refuses to consider folded dimensions ..or non locality other than to say it happens but we do not know why , but we also do not like any of your explanation however we do not know either... if space is bendable , why cant it be folded into dimensions we cannot see ?if the movement of objects in these dimensions went through the folds of our space the motion would appear non local because it never actually moved in our space .. it punched through its bends .. but that is not exactly what i am saying .. i am taking it a little further and saying our objective reality behaves like a holograph projected onto a scalar .this completely solves the locality issue ,.... also this model supposes the cosmological natural selection answer to solve the fine tuning problem .. subsequently the holographic solution also allows 11 dimensional super gravity , bubble universe model , multiverse theories , and quantum physics , GR in all aspects on our explicate level or implicate level, i consider this a working model and my biggest contribution besides seeing how these models can flow together that others created , is the pilot wave equations we came up with and the dimensional filtration values .. i am someone doing this in his spare time, somethings took me awhile , and a lot of help was needed... the process views dimensions being filters and their receiver states are particles having no exact parameters other than size and mass and receiver and dimension nature . i describe particles as p-branes as well.. they get the spin and charge from the pilot wave . t ...the curvature of space that the masses cause in Lorentz space as per GR is what tells the particle how to receive the force ( this is my idea !!) .. this allow the particles to receive in different ways in different scenarios and the space curvature is the control dial !!!.. which allows GR to still play a vital role on the explicate universe... .
2. the fine tuning issue and models explanation while answering non locality
the multiverse is made up of a system of singularity sized open bound universes that lie on a scalar plane where a unified field pilot wave is projected onto .. the scalar could be considered a cross section and is open boundary....we will call the holograph objective reality we observe the explicate and the pilot wave itself the implicate the explicates singularities they reside within are mass regulators between oscillation states..... every universe is both a projected scalar and a single point at the same time on a cross section of the pilot wave,,,the single point versions of them selves exit in other explicate realities in order to balance energy and mass between all of the explicate states and control oscillation, via dark energy ,mass and gravity acquisition , or output .... quantum gravity wave theory describes it like a three dimensional field on a two dimensional scalar .. this is very similar to the holographic model i am using .. however i am going a couple steps further ,, instead of the gravity wave being its own objective particle wave in our Lorentz 3 d planes that behaves autonomously and runs into existential contradictions .. it is being projected from an ultimate unified pilot wave , that carries every force and fields. any force can be expressed via the dimension that filters it. .. particles are simply put receivers of the frequency the carrier wave assigned to it,,, how space is folded via relativity determined how the particle will receive the wave .. this feature of my model explains why gravity works different on the quantum and relativistic levels especially 11 dimensional super gravity is taken into consideration once i postulate both open dimensions and calai yau space dimensions are also filters of the unified pilot wave for any force p-branes that are the receiver and space curvature as the dialer
,,
3 what is bubble model and Hubble constant , and what did i mean by space time able to allow faster than light observation ?
i am suggesting a bubble model multiverse like the post i showed,but more as like a balloon model becuase of how i tie white holes into it, each bubble is actually inside of a singularity that is observable on another axis of the pilot wave to open dimensions,, basically every singularity is manifested in someone else explicate holograph , ( dimension planes of there objective reality or in lay terms our black holes we would see inside our own universe are doorways to universes connected to their closed dimensional scalar ) the reason for this is simple .. the singularities serve two purposes to regulate mass and energy between oscillating states (fine tuning on a multiverse level.).. for both a source of energy for inflation ( to help create big bangs) ,, and as a regulator of negative energy , to have the tension force by converting its acquired mass into dark energy fro both single universes , and the entire pilot wave system is constantly rebalanced this way like tumblers in a lock,, black holes are like big bang , dark energy , fine tuning engines similar to Quentin smiths model of cosmological natural selection , we can visulaize the system like a basic holograph . the result of the scalar plane made up of all infinite closed dimension filters is they allow " on" and "off" current positions of the pilot wave , the first on and off filter switch ...this scalar of closed dimensions is projected onto by the pilot wave (holograph laser or unified field) ,,the pilot wave is carrying the unified field and infinite energy , there are infinite scalar planes , infinite combination of dimensional filtering therefore very strange strong anthropic models and various lifeforms could exist in other universes..
i hope this helps clarify this is the thesis assumption on this side of the "how " and what i am implying on the "why" paper when i mentioned gravitons " it had little to do with all of these crazy ideas in this paper ..... .what we take from it for the other side .. is only this "simultaneous interaction" is logically needed for the metaphysical third question Quentin smith asks " does the sum of everything in our universe require a cause or can it cause itself.."... that is all i am presupposing on the metaphysical discussion on page 27 .. all of this is a completely separate arena .. the one thing in common is the issue of action at a distance ....but this paper is more concerned whether we should start seeing reality in a new way to explain these violations of objective reality ..the black hole con paper i probably should not have used because i was assuming gnosis would follow the contradiction logic i was asserting but it only served to confuse him and the issue of what i was really supposing
all i am asserting on page 27 in that metaphysics model is simultaneous interaction is logically possible , and give various forms of support to the priori
hope this all helped clarify what is going on in physics conflicts right now , and how different people are approaching it , and how i am approaching it .the problem of gravity systems breaking down and non locality are the main conflicts as well as gauge theory breaking down . cosmology has gotten very philosophical at the moment because if there are multiple universe we cannot see them so there is no way to experiment ,, all we can do look at various system breakdowns as the visible interactions between multiple universes or dimensions
Rofl, I never studied any of this shit in school, but i've read enough on my own to appreciate it and understand at the least, the jargon... Your posts are awesome Chessmaster, maybe they deserve their own thread though ^_^
yeah i probs could have left all this stuff out and explained it like a hollographic stereo tuning in reality dimensions are the filters , three types .... closed is weak force dominate and act nolocaly toward folded and open types.......... they filter the signal in various ways .. the particles receive them in according to how space curvature is telling them to dial in to the pilot wave signal .. the, mass and dark energy is regulated by the singularities in between the universes they reside, forming, this oscillating , tumbler system or kerr , hawking , and vacuum kerr types ..it is hard to visualize ,, especial l when i add the black hole fine tuning aspect and oscillation theory .,...but this may have gotten more across then all the other mumbo jumbo combined in the other posts .. i just thought of the radio tuner analogy ,, but instead of tuning in a radio signal , we are tuning our holographic realty , and their are infinite holographic reality .. like a quantum holograph / radio.i would need to draw pictures to really get he idea across , but this is probably the simplified illustration ,,how quantum computers use entangled particles would be another approximation but slightly different
anyway i will take that stuff down and just leave the links
but i am done thx for looking at it no need for a new thread
On May 09 2010 05:47 JinMaikeul wrote: My only problem with these videos is that a lot of it essentially runs under the assumption that if something is logically impossible, it is indeed impossible. The reason I have a problem with this is that it assumes that our logic is absolute, which it isn't.
Do you have any examples of logic failing? Of something which is logically true or false, but not actually true or false?
While I do believe there is an underlying logic to the way this universe functions, I do not believe we can assume our understanding of it is indeed correct or valid.
And we don't. That's why proper scientific theories are always disprovable, you just need some evidence.
This really isn't meant to be a defense of God, religion, etc. or anything else, but rather a call to accept that perhaps we may not know as much as we believe we do. And so long as we argue on the basis of something we do not know or understand to be irrefutably true, what makes an atheist any different from a theist?
The difference is that to a theist, not knowing everything is taken as a license to just make things up. An atheist doesn't take such liberties.
As an atheist, I don't say that there is definitively no God. I say that to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that God exists.
The truth is we're arguing with eachother along two completely different lines of thought. The theist will argue on possibility whereas the atheist's argument is completely about probability simply because he cannot make any definitive statement as to what exactly is impossible.
But there's an infinite amount of things that are possible. Why give some of them (God/religion) a special status and respect?
well there are similarities maybe in one of zeno paradox but i think this is actually an aristotle paradox that is attributed to zeno for some reason that is the" paradox of place. every thing has a place , then so must that place, and so and and so forth .. i view the solution of this paradox as a holograph ,, that solves this paradox by making non locality possible , i answer aristoltles paradox by creating a new one , / " every place has a place and its place is the sum of all places " this desrcibes a on local system like a holograph this is my solution to Aristotles paradox ,a holographic reality , and synergy ,, ... if you cut any sized pieced from a holographic image , you still have the entire picture , cut a piece from the piece , and you have it smaller yet again .. ad infinity ,,no matter how many times you cut it .. ( of course you lose resolution )
also once you unify space and time .. many of these zeno paradox instantly fail because he uses them as separate in his questions ......... i remember them from calculus. interval convergent series, also solves many of them as well i think .... but there are a lot of metaphysical implications still from them .. if you are a philosopher who views time as things in motion .. then they pose particular problems ... luckily my view is a little more complex on time ..so i do not run into these problems ... you maybe could claim at least as far as the dichotomy argument goes, it is a little similar to my t(U)=o argument on page 27 but as far as i know i am not arguing from any of zenos except this one ..
i use a half open interval to describe the first moment of time in our universe , which also was an infinite moment of time which is similar to the interval zenos paradox of dichotmety uses , i believe that is the infinite task one right ?.. so yeah i guess this one i use but not in any of these posts on the 3 last pages
you could say i am driving the holographic model as a solution to Aristotles paradox of place though , but it came in the reverse order from you mentioning it ..i derived aristotles paraqdox ... from my model in answer to your post ... so i guess yi are correct about two that i see
i was not aware my model solved this until you got me thinking about this in those terms .. so i thank you
lol....wait i found a zeno paradox in nature but a sight different ..
Achilles and the tortoise experiment ... Achilles = the light from a super nova in another galaxy moving away from earth tortoise = an observer on earth looking at Achilles through a telescope
ok..... picture a galaxy traveling away from earth... Achilles is the light from a super nova in this galaxy .. and the observer on earth is the tortoise .. ..he is racing Achilles in space .. eventually the tortoise will win and Achilles will disappear in the past never to be seen again .. ok a test to see if you have been paying attention
i .. the question is .. why does Achilles win in the real zenos paradox .. but why does he not win in this thought experiment light and observer race i posted here ? ( heheh i know i know)
kinda simple really ,,, but still it is anti-intuitive answer i think a philosopher in zenos day , never would have been able to answer this .. but today i saw the connection in two seconds after you made that allusion to zeno got me thinking about infinite series , and that flavor ,..... just shows you how far we have come in philosophy
this is the kind of stuff i was asking for .. when i asked for interpretations ,, thank you i am actually kind of embarrassed i forgot about these and did not already think of the connection and answer to the question i ask on this post with Achilles paradox...,, and that the place paradox describes non local systems like holographs as a solution perfectly it has been a long time since i studied the greeks and i admittingly have not thought of these logical paradox for a while becuase i generally look at time differently than these set of greeksdid .... which is connecting time to motion .i did read the post troy epic, the journey of Aeneas recently . but that is roman
I've finally had a chance to read this thread, and I have found the discussions extremely interesting and the coherency of the posts refreshing. Please don't take anything offline in PMs or emails without notifying me.
Unfortunately, I don't have the same amount of "free time" as some of you have/had so I haven't read as much as some of you, but I do have perspectives I believe would add to and perhaps change some of your viewpoints. I specifically enjoyed the discussion on objective morality and the discussion of time. These are the two areas which you guys have naturally come to, because I believe they are some of the most important questions and the unexplainable flaws in our (humanity's) thinking.
I won't be able to post contiguous and long responses like some of you because of both time constraints and difficulty forming ideas (indeed, there are books which I have not yet started which I need to read before I can answer some of these questions). I sure hope these issues don't get solved too quickly in this thread before I have a chance to join in .
As a preview, I do have a physics degree, and I think its a subject that cannot be ignored. But I also think that our scientific models have some serious flaws. The concept of time is of central importance in this area.
As far as objective morality, I'm not sure what that means. I suppose I view things differently, I will be happy to discuss these things.
nice ,, what kind of physics ...??? you are just the guy i want to talk to yeah i just got calculus going for me and only basic level.. and i have taught myself some basic gauge theory stuff GR QM and some different types of m-theory p-brane interaction , but i am pretty weak on it all , i always need help doing the math i forget alot of the symbols.. i understand the concepts coming from a strong geometry and decent calculus background though.also strong logic background... but most of my more adcanced understandings i have taught myself in my spare time... my buddy is phd in low energy quantum fields and i used to hang with him in the lab all the time , we would get high and play with spectral analysis .. he taught me .alot about low energy wave manifolds. but i am pretty weak over all compared to you i am sure ....i would like very much to get your opinion about this model .. if it is a viable oscillating system or not ,,, i am approaching the fine tuning problem of hubbles constant and dark energy from a quentin smith approach of black hole naturalism , but the model is slightly different ,... every universe is both a single point and an open boundary projection at the same time .. different from smiths models in three major ways... i use transactional time between universes as well
But there's an infinite amount of things that are possible. Why give some of them (God/religion) a special status and respect?
Religion allows the gifting of useful philosophy, without the need to understand it.
Atheism has an easy job of attacking religion. Religion is irrational in exactly the same way society is. There is plenty of room for improvement in most religions. But to attack all religion without providing a competitive philosophy is self destructive IMO.
....i would like very much to get your opinion about this model FightorFlight ..
. this describes a filter switch on the GR geodesic at Quantum sub planck scales below i describe how a closed dimensional filter allow the graviton to pass through calibi yau filters to our three open dimensions.. here is my graviton filter model right now i am using please give me your honest opinion if you have the time fight or flight , i would greatly appreciate it , everything but the dark energy value at the end is fairly simple , and you should not have too much trouble with it.. i would just ignore my dark energy CC values at the bottom they are not important
this is a concept of spin 2 gravitons being exchanged by two objects of mass and are entangled at 1/2 spin ...through the closed dimension filters..
such that a quantum entanglement has been previously postulated at a distance r, and it eventually collapses when finding its object of gravitational desire the dimensions filter setting was easy to find for the spin 2 zero mass bosons ...at 1/2 when entangled , i only need off and on settings for the filter on the closed dimensional level ( the scalar ) 1/2 is a simple and fluid equation spin value The graviton system collapses to the proposed geodesic tumbler*receiver dial) at on and off settings for both the filter and the force ,
|0>|0>, or
|1>|1>.
We can address this gravitational interaction with only the collapsed state |0>|0> meaning repulsion, and |1>|1> attraction .....so basically the symmetry particle states are brought by the same particle , it gets its value ( dark energy ,gravity ) from the filtered signal for this boson in the geodesic ,. space curvature geodesic 's communicate how much of the weak force it needs to exchange to propagate the weak field ; the closed dimensions are non local nd open boundary to the open dimensions (4d space-time)so this explains quantum gravity waves and entanglement or any form of field non locality... the entangled particles never actually moved on the non local level ... .. basically the filter is on another dimensional scalar that is hollographically nonlocal to our lorentzian universe , while the geodesic tunes the boson into the folded dimensions* calibi yau space) which then filters it on through to our open objective reality
lets call gravitons spin 2 entangled at 1/2 spin and are virtual particles that are receivers for a pilot wave ,, Call beta the probability for a particle to act as a receiver for the gravitational force towards the other one as wave = r and alpha, at the the probability for it resulting on opposite direction, we can express the collapsed state, |s>, of the entangled gravitational system as:
|s> = alpha|0> + beta|1>,
such that alpha + beta = 1, than |s> is either
|s> = |0>|0> , or |s> = |1>|1>
This means that a filter dial geodesic(what i call it) addresses the wave signature of the gravitational interaction as on- off , and repulse- attract and the geodesic sets the gain. Once it is known whether it is an attractive or repulsive force needed, we can apply the quantum or classical law if needed to equate the gravitational forces alpha is a wave function of distance r.and then alpha = 0 r = 0, , if r = R_h, where R_h is Hubble radius, and at alpha = 1. elementary masses, which are coupled quantum gravitational entanglements at distances close to R_h, should be showing repulsive gravitational attributes , with an ever increasing probability symmetrically, elementary masses, coupling at sub Planck scales, would be exhibiting an alpha close to the fine-structure constant in the filter manifold
the dark energy value is repulsive at a third (in geometric units) of the total density. p < LaTeX Code: - \\frac{1}{3}\\rho c^2 . dark energy cosmological constant, LaTeX Code: \\Lambda , tension force at < LaTeX Code: - \\rho c^2 .in open dimensions .hot gas or radiation field such as the CMB is the positive value of deceleration in this process of states as currently predicted
this is why we cannot see the gravitational field or gravitons , they annihilate each other once the force is transmitted and the field takes place within folded dimensions,, graviton are only good for transmitting quantum information not classical in this filter model in human application ..
hey mr. physicists if you could glance this over i would appreciate it greatly it is fairly straightforward .....this is the most parsimonious model for this filter and receiver concept i came up with
as i have never taken physics ,, and taught myself advanced calculus from a basic level in my spare time... i was wondering if this physics is working or incorrect..i currently have no help .. and am trying to solve these filtering issues.. the weak fields should be the easiest to solve, why i am starting here..it is just a matter of finding the spin states of entanglement, so everything equals out in a simple , symmetrical way , and the force gets there correctly , but i need to to predict what we are already seeing experimentally to of course......and tie 11 dimensional super gravity into it , because i need folded dimensions for htis model to work i have to be able to plug calibi yau space inot this model and most m-theory p-brane characteristics ,, luckily there is alot of symmetry already in m-theory . so i am just looking for the right puzzle pieces .. .,. does this filter work toward getting the graviton behaving like it needs to in our 4d space-time on both a GR and QM level where the gauges break down ?are the p-brane models compatible with this ? since i am plugging calaibi yau space into a plank scale GR geodesic, i am allowing the pbrane string model to work on our space-time ,, is this a symmetrical solution ? my guess is.. since the GR level wave on the geodesic is the dialer .. and the virtual particle at spin is the receiver ,, is should always be able to do what it needs as these two are simultaneously interacting between the relativistic and quantum states .. it balances itself to accomplish tunneling or whatever else its virtual business is.. except we can explain tunneling in a new way now with this model . it gets there non locally ..,
I'm going to be honest with you chessmaster, I only have a 4 year physics degree, which is basically nothing. The only reason I mentioned it was to simply show that I understand the most basic concepts of physics.
I'm also going to tell you that I cannot say whether your model is correct or not because I do not have a deep knowledge of particle physics.
I will say however, that I believe much of our current physics to be seriously flawed at a fundamental level, and therefore, I don't believe any correct model can truly be built directly on top of it.
Lets look at the problems: - 95% of the universe is currently completely unknown with the introduction of dark energy, and dark matter - QM and GR are incompatible - QM requires almost an infinite energy density in space while GR requires a lower but still finite energy density of space
Let me ask you a simple question CM. Lets say have a standing wave photon in a box. Lets say you overlay another standing wave photon in the box, but 180 degrees out of phase (so they cancel). Where does the energy go?
the way the standard model and gauge theory (Quantum electro-dynamics)looks at photons today they could quantum tunnel if they had to right out of the box........ .http://www.altair.org/Qtunnel.html ,,,,,,,, here is a low tech tunnel experiment
.but the myth says............................
lmao the most perpetuated "modern urban physics myth ".. that lasers in zero phase violate conservation laws ..well let me enlighten you on the problems with classical particle wave duality and its problems as it relates to quantum electrodynamics , .. lasers can be compared to RF transmission , since you cannot zero phase two lasers we must look at two RF transmission to see what would happen ...... this issue is nothing more than smoke and mirrors .. and imaginary problem that does not exist anywhere but inside feynmans head,, i assure you lasers in zero or 180 degree phase do not violate conservation of energy ,
ok i will explain this is classical wave form since that what you probably know.. i prefer modern gauge theory .... but lets use wave theory since you said standing wave........... well since your experiment is not in a vacuum and does not have a 1/4 silver mirror i would say the laser just reabsorbed the values after destructive interference, constructive interference , and whatever does not find the lowest impedance elsewhere will go down the transmission line , the average energy density is twice that of either wave, just as it's supposed to be. and as Maxwell himself coined the terms, "virtual short" and "virtual open", as a shorthand description of what rearward-traveling reflected energy encounters at a match point in a transmission line resulting in 100% re-reflection ", basically in the case of two emitters and mirrors one emitter will act like a reflector or absorber and the system will compensate,... He also explained the function of destructive wave interference and constructive wave interference in achieving a match point on a transmission line .. we can basically view the optics as RF transmissions . they follow the same conservation laws as applied to waves.. .. when two waves of laser light that are equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-degrees ... out of phase with each other cross paths, they are not actually annihilated becuase photons do not annihilate they have no antiparticle except in Feynman imagination or in nuclear explosions, all of the photon energy present in these waves must somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to the law of energy conservation , in the quantum world photons do not annihilate often so they happily and harmlessly bounce around down the transmission ....we could look at any heat from friction to be less than that of empty space.. ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so the effect should be considered as a " redistribution of e-field light waves and photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light , this is where the myth perpetuates , we are only destroying light in " visible range " the E field not the B field ...... of course what the experimental system not take care of , our own earth background scalar waves will cancel the rest.. In an RF transmission line, since there are only two possible directions, the only "regions that permit constructive interference" at an impedance discontinuity is the opposite direction from the direction of destructive interference.so how do we relate this to lasers ? well........(i got this from my engineering dictionary ) " the original version, the redistribution of energy due to wave cancellation was called a "reflection", a common practice in amateur radio circles. the new description is in favor of a "redistribution" . The word "reflection" is reserved for describing the event when a single wave encounters an impedance discontinuity. This is accordance with the definition of "reflected wave". The word "redistribution" of energy is adopted for describing what happens to the energy when two or more waves interact. In like manner, since interference can occur with or without permanent wave interaction, interference alone is necessary but not sufficient to correspond to the permanent redistribution of energy."
when you start adding mirrors , and make the box a vacuum then turn the phase to a 180 phase as this experiment case it is simple there is no extra energy .. since you are measuring it as a wave you get destructive interference ..and harmonic nulls with constructive interference waves along the transmission line...... as far as zero degree phase is concerned it is not even possible with a laser to create a disappeared standing wave at zero phase since we cannot make a perfect 0 degree phase ... we get a Coherent combination on the transmission line and constructional interference either on line or off axis .. also background interference with earths scalar waves occur in your experiment as you did not specify an imaginary, perfect vacuum ////// in the field of optics, irradiance is the same thing as the power flow vector in an RF transmission line. Irradiance, like a power flow vector, has the dimensions of energy per unit time per unit area. The 1/4 wavelength thin-film deposited on glass to obtain a non-reflective surface performs in a virtually identical way to a 1/4 wavelength series matching section in a transmission line. Single-source RF energy in a transmission line and laser light are both coherent electromagnetic energy waves that obey the laws of superposition, interference, conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum. The power density terms in the irradiance equation have been multiplied by the unit area of the transmission line to obtain the resulting power equation in watts.
and or
but let us assume we can get lasers to phase at zero degrees ....this question at hand however is at least interesting in theory. Traveling waves do not remain in a constructive or destructive pattern and result in the null and dual intensity energy densities, wherein on the average the energy is conserved.but it gets dissipated over short terms and distances into the background waves , but the amplifier and capacitors can also adsorb these low frequency waves for instance, consider an Op Amp with two perfectly matched signals one + and one -. The input energy of the + vs the output is calculable, likewise for the - input. However if both inputs are driven simultaneously there is no output. Energy hasn't disappeared. The Op Amp still draws power but the efficiency of transfer to i.e. acoustical in case of a speaker, has dropped to zero.so even in this hypothetical case if it were possible and background scalar waves did not cancel energy , then the electrical system of the device would absorb the energy the emmiter would act as a reflector(most likely ....i have see a version of this pushing it back as close to zero degrees as i could with a mirror second phased set of lasers joining inn phase...contrary to myth, there are in theory, very subtle two phase settings
If in theory, however, one could generate signals where there is an energy output and they could be perfectly matched and aligned 180 degrees out of phase with the same vector, energy conservation appears to be violated.but it only appears this way .......... . ..but as long as you are looking at it as a wave ...l then look at it like RF signals ..... .. to me this physics myth has been blown out of proportion ..and for some reason it has hung around even though educated people know the history of particle wave duality and how the myth started.... the war of fermions ,,, or boson ....full integer ... or half integer spin......... .. either you are looking at it like a wave or you are not .....these imagined problems formed by classical particle wave duality looking at photons as fermions are imaginary and not real .. so my answer is ??the imaginary extra energy does not go anywhere becuase it was never there in the first place .. .... .... lt would be more interesting of a question to ask from a quantum standpoint in my opinion ,, when we start viewing it as a particle gauge boson that exist probabilistically , interference becomes truly strange/////
.. this sounds like a trick question a teacher would ask in physics 102 after you learned the first year and forget to tell you about earths scalar waves.that cancel.......or the teacher forgets to tell you background radiation in space . so there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum ... or that you cannot build perfect 0 phase lasers as well , or this issue is based of several particle wave duality myths carried over from classical mechanics that are now obsolete ....
so what have we learned ? this is no mystery of destructive interference , as an engineer would say, that is how they view it ......they compensate for impedance of the devices when designing for RF transmission waves. , energy will find other pathways in the amps or , or the emitters themselves will act like a mirrors or absorbers , basically the extra energy that cannot fit in the constant state will resume down the transmission , destruct ,reflect. or absorb.. 1.....if two electromagnetic-waves interfere destructively, only the E-field gets to be zero at that point. The B-field still oscillates at the fine structure constant ... the very equations are symmetrical. take an emitter and fire it at another emitter located half a wavelength away, the second emitter will not emit extra energy , ... It will just absorb the energy of the other emitter and use it.that is what i found anyway .. then you will see an addition of out of phase waves equaling to zero beyond the second emitter, but the paradox of energy loss is resolved by realizing that the second emitter is in fact an absorber . ....... it seems the other laser always reflected or absorbed when i got a constant state and they equalized , basically the system absorbed it ,, or background scalar waves from our earth will cancel it if that is the least resistance ,
once you add duality however , or quantum aspects it gets a little more complected ,, gauge theory , quantum electro dynamics , and all that shit Gaussian beams.etc...
It is like asking: when i set a glass in a stream and keep pouring water into a glass ,, when the glass gets full, where does the water go?
The point is: you cannot keep pouring water into a full glass energy flows into the space in which the two waves are canceling each other and flow down the transmission line ,,,.........
.. but i am not an expert on Maxwells classical wave theory which is a little outdated, Feynman or debroglie , or explaining particle wave duality in classical terms the way i view light in string theory this gets explained much easier
any way about all i remember about wave theory .. nowadays we view it as a gauge boson.....and these old myths have been solved .. just some of the textbooks are outdated and this myth has stayed alive somehow .. the way the standard model and gauge theory (Quantum electro-dynamics)looks at photons today they could quantum tunnel if they had to right out of the box
There were so many responds and criticism to this thread once. After the Sc2 release and such there are so many new people between us and i kinda feel the need to open this discussion with bumping the thread again. QualiaSoup and ThereminTrees(Qualia's brother) added new videos about morality, god, gimmicks, games etc. so i would like to add them to the op too but i just can't edit them. Anyways again, you will find a lot more in the videos.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school? Does being skeptic a good aproach to moral related discussions? Can morality be objective? Anything related with videos.
Note: I talked a mod about posting these videos to the op because i can't change it so it would be really good if any mod could do it. Thank you.
Good bump. I think our community would be much better if people put more thought into what they want to say. X-X
When I was in University, Critical Thinking/Reasoning was mandatory all across the board. It didn't matter which faculty you were in. You had to take it.
The only exposure I have to transactional analysis was that book Games People Play, and while it had some really good explanations for alcoholism and group therapy ego-stroking, the stuff relating to male/female interaction was so tainted with Freudian babble about penis envy and oedipal urges that I sort of shrugged the whole subject off.
I'll take a look at these videos when I get home; hopefully there's been some advancement in the field since then and I don't have to hear about wanting to fuck my mom.
The only exposure I have to transactional analysis was that book Games People Play, and while it had some really good explanations for alcoholism and group therapy ego-stroking, the stuff relating to male/female interaction was so tainted with Freudian babble about penis envy and oedipal urges that I sort of shrugged the whole subject off.
I'll take a look at these videos when I get home; hopefully there's been some advancement in the field since then and I don't have to hear about wanting to fuck my mom.
The videos are noob friendly so don't expect academic stuff. The purpose is to get more people understand critical thinking related stuff and teach them the ways or explain what are the motives of doing what we do in simplest ways.
Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Yeah but looks like not many people eager to talk about it like first time
On May 16 2010 00:05 chessmaster wrote:as i have never taken physics ,, and taught myself advanced calculus from a basic level in my spare time... i was wondering if this physics is working or incorrect..i currently have no help
You would seriously benefit from graduate level physics courses. Go to your local university and ask the professors if you can sit in on some courses because you are just very interested. It's quite hard to read what you are proposing because you bounce between topics, and frequently mix analogy and QM notation. Also, when you say advanced calculus, that includes tensor calculus, right? Otherwise you can't deal with General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory as they are formulated.
I'm taking an AS/A level in Philosophy (16-18 y/o for those in America) and I honestly think the world would be just such a better place if everyone took either that or a critical thinking course. (I was going to do crit thinking as well but decided on Art instead ) Philosophy and Crit thinking are of course a little different but the idea stands
Jobs such as Law, Medicine, Military command etc should definitely require a course in Philosophy and/or Crit thinking IMO
On July 30 2011 06:11 BlindSC2 wrote: I'm taking an AS/A level in Philosophy (16-18 y/o for those in America) and I honestly think the world would be just such a better place if everyone took either that or a critical thinking course. (I was going to do crit thinking as well but decided on Art instead ) Philosophy and Crit thinking are of course a little different but the idea stands
Jobs such as Law, Medicine, Military command etc should definitely require a course in Philosophy and/or Crit thinking IMO
At least in the US, the LSAT [standardized test for law students] has its majority based upon argument-building/reasoning processes.
On July 30 2011 06:40 sorrowptoss wrote: It's funny how you need an open-mind to understand what an open-mind is. I showed this to one of my friends and he said it was stupid. LOL
Perfect example of his personal bias affecting the way he thinks.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school?
It can't hurt but I wouldn't expect huge results. In most situations it's not that people lack the information and skills to make an informed decision. It's just that they are unwilling to abandon their beliefs or are emotionally invested in some other way.
There are ways of rationalizing beliefs that aren't obviously incorrect. At worst you can drag out an argument until the other side gets bored. To me it's more a matter of attitude. If someone isn't actually open to what you are saying in the first place it is extremely unlikely they will change their minds.
At the same time a good argument isn't necessarily the one that is the most logical or comprehensive, but the one that makes the other person most comfortable or willing to consider your position.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school?
It can't hurt but I wouldn't expect huge results. In most situations it's not that people lack the information and skills to make an informed decision. It's just that they are unwilling to abandon their beliefs or are emotionally invested in some other way.
There are ways of rationalizing beliefs that aren't obviously incorrect. At worst you can drag out an argument until the other side gets bored. To me it's more a matter of attitude. If someone isn't actually open to what you are saying in the first place it is extremely unlikely they will change their minds.
At the same time a good argument isn't necessarily the one that is the most logical or comprehensive, but the one that makes the other person most comfortable or willing to consider your position.
This post has a great deal of merit. I always drudge discussing matters of rationality and logic, despite being well educated. I can't handle discussions on atheist belief, for example, despite being an atheist.
People "think" they are logical or rational, but they are still stupid as fuck, and crazy wrong. It's almost as bad as name dropping. Have some stupid point you made up? Don't worry, just include "logical" somewhere in your post, and everyone has to take you seriously.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school?
It can't hurt but I wouldn't expect huge results. In most situations it's not that people lack the information and skills to make an informed decision. It's just that they are unwilling to abandon their beliefs or are emotionally invested in some other way.
There are ways of rationalizing beliefs that aren't obviously incorrect. At worst you can drag out an argument until the other side gets bored. To me it's more a matter of attitude. If someone isn't actually open to what you are saying in the first place it is extremely unlikely they will change their minds.
At the same time a good argument isn't necessarily the one that is the most logical or comprehensive, but the one that makes the other person most comfortable or willing to consider your position.
You're so right about that and i think it may be because of some ancient biological gene which help us in some way but can't be sure about that.
Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school?
It can't hurt but I wouldn't expect huge results. In most situations it's not that people lack the information and skills to make an informed decision. It's just that they are unwilling to abandon their beliefs or are emotionally invested in some other way.
There are ways of rationalizing beliefs that aren't obviously incorrect. At worst you can drag out an argument until the other side gets bored. To me it's more a matter of attitude. If someone isn't actually open to what you are saying in the first place it is extremely unlikely they will change their minds.
At the same time a good argument isn't necessarily the one that is the most logical or comprehensive, but the one that makes the other person most comfortable or willing to consider your position.
You're so right about that and i think it may be because of some ancient biological gene which help us in some way but can't be sure about that.
I think science and critical thinking could be taught a lot better in schools. Particularly at the elementary level I think it needs to be asserted that science is not simply a subject of study but a way of thinking and coming to new information through a way of critical thinking. The scientific methods for research aren't really given a proper treatment until college and I think it's important younger students learn methods for obtaining valid information or at least differentiating between scientific and non-scientific studies/data.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
It is impossible to be intellectually honest and have an answer to the question of "what happens after we die?" No one living can know what death (or the 'afterlife') is like, so it is literally impossible to be honest with yourself about what you know if you claim to know what happens after you die.
It's also quite difficult to fathom an empirically or reasonably verifiable purpose to the existence of human beings as a whole. We can identify purposes for parts of us, but those purposes do not necessarily imply that we are existentially bound to them. For all we know, there may be no grand purpose, but that has no effect on whether or not we are intellectually honest with ourselves.
The last question can be speculated about endlessly, but also has no real relevance to the idea of intellectual honesty. Love has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is the concept that I am not allowing myself to believe that something is true/false when I have valid reasoning to believe that it is false/true. It is also, then, the idea that one will not believe that something is true/false if there is not enough evidence to prove it either way. Intellectual honesty is not lying to yourself about what you do or do not know to be logically true.
I remember watching these videos two years ago. They made me think more about other people's motivations in general. If you think about it, what motivates most people when they are arguing for one side of a debate? Humans are emotional creatures really...
@arbitrageur
TL.net Bot TL.net. May 12 2010 23:07. Posts 3 PM Profile Quote # Lixler was just temp banned for 30 days by Kennigit.
That account was created on 2010-03-03 03:20:07 and had 53 posts.
Reason: Really obnoxious poster. Lose your attitude.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
I beg your pardon? What you just wrote here has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is recognizing flaws in your reasoning (about any possible subject) and being man enough to dismiss that reasoning, instead of turning a blind eye, even if you for a very long time thought your opinion was sound.
I'm eternally grateful to my parents (particularly my mother) for not pushing their religious beliefs on me. The furthest they ever went was to have me baptized as a baby, just in case I wanted to pursue a Christian path when I was ready to make the decision myself. Instead of indoctrinating me, like so many families do, they let me make up my own mind, choose my own path and taught me the skills I needed to do so. Not only did they give me life, they gave me intellectual freedom, and I believe that to be a critically important element into the growth of a person. This literally only just dawned on me too, after reading part of this thread yesterday and mulling it over, and I'll have to remember to thank them in person when they visit in September.
One of my bigger disappointments with society today is there's this idea floating around that people get indoctrinated away from religion, where in reality it's the exact opposite. Sadly, the people that need these skills the most, are already too-far gone to look at these videos as anything more than a form of indoctrination.
On July 29 2011 05:20 Aelfric wrote: Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school?
How exactly do you propose we teach critical thinking to those born without that ability? Is there any methodology that could apply to teach people to learn how to ask questions before jumping into conclusions? If there is, I would love for to point me to it. To my current understanding, it's unfortunately impossible to teach critical thinking. You're either born with it or not.
Does being skeptic a good aproach to moral related discussions? Can morality be objective?
Objectively, there is no such thing as morals. Morals are a made up idea by people who are too afraid of reality, just like god.
On July 29 2011 05:20 Aelfric wrote: Is critical thinking needed, should it be taught in school?
How exactly do you propose we teach critical thinking to those born without that ability? Is there any methodology that could apply to teach people to learn how to ask questions before jumping into conclusions? If there is, I would love for to point me to it. To my current understanding, it's unfortunately impossible to teach critical thinking. You're either born with it or not.
What reasoning/evidence do you have for thinking that critical thinking is something you're born with?
Critical thinking is taught in schools. at least the in the district I grew up. Almost every text book has "critical thinking exercises" Also, many of my teachers throughout school, even in college deeply emphasized critical thinking, Some even saying they were more concerned with teaching critical thinking than the primary subject material. I've only watched a few of these videos, but I love them. : )
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
I beg your pardon? What you just wrote here has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is recognizing flaws in your reasoning (about any possible subject) and being man enough to dismiss that reasoning, instead of turning a blind eye, even if you for a very long time thought your opinion was sound.
apologies to you thorakh for sparking some tempers. I will rephrase myself. So the premise here is that kids should not be "indoctrinated" with anything, but given the ability to decide for themselves what to believe, how to think and how to reason. So given that you have made your choice to reject Jesus, I was just wondering what kind of answers your "critical thinking" has since provided, to the biggest questions which we face in our lives. Namely why we are here, what is death, what happens after death etc.
I totally agree with you - every kid needs to be taught: Think before you believe. Investigate, test the evidence and try things out before you judge it. Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
I don't know about a lot of these videos; they seem to be preaching to the choir (Irony of statement is realized, thank you.) There's no way to convince someone who has accepted what they think as true otherwise, and FRANKLY there's absolutely no point in trying to convince them otherwise. Making these 1-sided rants on youtube does nothing for convincing your everyday christian/muslim/jew. They don't see these kinds of videos simply because they don't look for them. (I also find it a little bit annoying that he only debates Christian perspectives. Perhaps it's because they're the most aggressive about their views?)
I just have never seen the reasoning behind trying to convince people why they're wrong and why they should think the way I do. It simply doesn't work. Not only is evidence impossible to fight, but so is faith. It's a fruitless battle trying to convince a life-long Christian that everything they based their life on is completely false because of equally absurd conditions as to what is possible and what is not.
I avoid these types of questions at all costs. Whether or not there's some guy with a beard looking over me has NEVER been a question that's constantly on my mind. And if it's not important to me what I think about a god, why should it be important what other people think about him? It's much better just to live and let live in my opinion. I don't need to look for some sort of meaning to my life, but I don't want to go around ruining it for people whose strength relies on their faith.
I have a grandfather who looks after his sister with Parkinson's and his wife with Alzheimer's. He's a devout Christian and his faith in God keeps him going every day (That and his love for tinkering and inventing things ). It's hard to argue with someone who is happy with their life as it is.
The reason why people confuse faith with religion is that faith is a central tennet of religion.
For someone who thinks critically the essence of religion is a set of beliefs and behaviours (which covers thought patterns) that have no reasonable (that is evidence based) explanation.
As such FAITH itself is the very core of religion.
If you dont believe me ehy not go read a HUGE chunk of philosophy over the years ... the majority of philosophy is one side trying to say faith gurantees things we cant prove ... the other side says that bullshit and is extremley unhelpful in understanding things
To deny faith and religion are the same thing is just plain wrong.
If you think you do not haver a religion you are very very wrong. Religion is ermbedded in our culture and language and out baqsic assumptions about the world. You could even say our perception of the world is shaped due to our upbringing in societies assumptions about everything - and that is a religious frameowrk that you CANNOT avoid.
The big problem is that the framework is horribly out of date (and always will be) because it suffers from the inertia of people who just accept status quo and refuse to think and reason for themselves. The worst group for this is usually the church because they also have many views that are thousands of years out of date and hold little validity now.
A harmlesss example being halal, a much less harmless example that christian societies have is the concept of the 'best' everything converges to 1 point ... rather than accepting that a curved geometric surface can have many minima points. This comes from an egocentric view of the world that is still embedded in our langauge adn 'common sense' views of the mind.
Dont get me wrong, using eason is still faith based .... the point is though that it criticises and aims to improive itself. constantly. Wheras religious beliefs do the opposite, through faith they prove themselves and so fly completley in the face of all evidence as a way to validate their existence. By saying 'No, This' in the face of truth they are affirming their existence.
On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why...
So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems.
The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification.
Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus.
(B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations.
I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now.
Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society).
umm for classical system F does = MA and the reason it does is that scientists give error measurements. Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote: Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too!
They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this!
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in.
I was excited to see this thread again, then I remembered what videos the OP actually picked. A nice explanation of quote mining and other bad ways to argue, then a few videos down some videos doing exactly that to Bible verses. I think I'll stay away.
On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote: Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too!
They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this!
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in.
I think there's a very big difference between an evolution of ideas, and people picking and choosing which parts they like.
One minute an anti-gay Christian will quote from Leviticus the passage saying words to the effect of "No man shall lie with another man, as they do a woman. For this is an abomination.", while simultaneously dismissing all of the passages of the Bible that seek to dominate and control women.
Last I checked, the Bible itself hasn't changed in a fair number of years. Only the methods and applications in which people apply its teachings to their lives.
I do think there is something of a moral-spectrum between skepticism and certitude, one that makes religion a little hypocritical.
Allowing doubt over your own thoughts will lead to more sympathetic reactions. Forgiveness is a great example of this. Anger is a very strong emotion, one that people can often never even get over. It's easy to stay mad at someone. It takes a rational mind to turn that around into genuine forgiveness.
And yet, the act of practicing religion is an act of settling in your convictions, of trusting your own judgment and beliefs. It's just very contradictory to me.
On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote: Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too!
They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this!
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in.
I think there's a very big difference between an evolution of ideas, and people picking and choosing which parts they like.
One minute an anti-gay Christian will quote from Leviticus the passage saying words to the effect of "No man shall lie with another man, as they do a woman. For this is an abomination.", while simultaneously dismissing all of the passages of the Bible that seek to dominate and control women.
Last I checked, the Bible itself hasn't changed in a fair number of years. Only the methods and applications in which people apply its teachings to their lives.
Sigh, @Arbitrageur, If you really want to know what CHristians think on the passages which you have just quoted, shoot me a message. Trolling is fun and I guess it makes you feel very smart when you troll the bible.
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote: Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too!
They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this!
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in.
I think there's a very big difference between an evolution of ideas, and people picking and choosing which parts they like.
One minute an anti-gay Christian will quote from Leviticus the passage saying words to the effect of "No man shall lie with another man, as they do a woman. For this is an abomination.", while simultaneously dismissing all of the passages of the Bible that seek to dominate and control women.
Last I checked, the Bible itself hasn't changed in a fair number of years. Only the methods and applications in which people apply its teachings to their lives.
Sigh, @Arbitrageur, If you really want to know what CHristians think on the passages which you have just quoted, shoot me a message. Trolling is fun and I guess it makes you feel very smart when you troll the bible.
What's the trolling?
I provided one case of cherry picking that proves the claim that at least some cherry picking occurs.
1 - Bible says women can't speak in church. 2 - Women speak in all churches I know of.
Conclusion: Modern Christians engage in cherry picking, where they ignore at least some parts of the Bible and in fact go against what it says.
Side note: Do not think that I'm implying a magnitude of cherry picking/ignoring in my conclusion. My only claim is that it exists as proven by the above example.
Q.E.D.
I'll spell it out clearly for you, as you've clearly ignored the quotations I've listed.
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
And yet they speak in church.
N.B.: I'm not disputing that the bible has some marvelous things to say that counter many of the barbaric things about the bible. My claim does not extend to the denial of this. My claim is that there's barbaric things that modern Christians ignore // i.e. there's cherry picking, as proven conclusively in this post.
Now my question to you: why is it that your church allows women to speak in church despite the bible saying they cannot do so? (Assuming that they do allow them to speak in your church, and assuming that you attend church.). Do you think God would be very happy about your church ignoring "His" word, and in fact doing the exact opposite thing that "He" commands?
On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why...
So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems.
The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification.
Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus.
(B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations.
I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now.
Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society).
The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this.
hmmm I'm surrounded by Christian doctors, lawyers, engineers and teachers. Dunno if those dudes are dumb or not, you be the judge.
That said, even with all this "education" and being in the "top end" of society, we (educated Christians) all have doubts and weakness in our faith at times. We are only human, plus we worship an invisible God. Sounds foolish? You bet. The bible itself says that we should be recognised as foolish by the rest of the world.
Here's a small excerpt out of 1 Corinthians ch 1. I recommend you to read the whole chapter, it's good stuff.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
and
... 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.
You may call me foolish / dumb / illogical / irrational. Because we are deservedly so. To deny that I am "foolish" is to deny my faith.
On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote: Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too!
They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this!
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in.
I think there's a very big difference between an evolution of ideas, and people picking and choosing which parts they like.
One minute an anti-gay Christian will quote from Leviticus the passage saying words to the effect of "No man shall lie with another man, as they do a woman. For this is an abomination.", while simultaneously dismissing all of the passages of the Bible that seek to dominate and control women.
Last I checked, the Bible itself hasn't changed in a fair number of years. Only the methods and applications in which people apply its teachings to their lives.
Sigh, @Arbitrageur, If you really want to know what CHristians think on the passages which you have just quoted, shoot me a message. Trolling is fun and I guess it makes you feel very smart when you troll the bible.
What's the trolling?
I provided one case of cherry picking that proves the claim that at least some cherry picking occurs.
1 - Bible says women can't speak in church. 2 - Women speak in all churches I know of.
Conclusion: Modern Christians engage in cherry picking, where they ignore at least some parts of the Bible and in fact go against what it says.
Side note: Do not think that I'm implying a magnitude of cherry picking/ignoring in my conclusion. My only claim is that it exists as proven by the above example.
Q.E.D.
I'll spell it out clearly for you, as you've clearly ignored the quotations I've listed.
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
And yet they speak in church.
N.B.: I'm not disputing that the bible has some marvelous things to say that counter many of the barbaric things about the bible. My claim does not extend to the denial of this. My claim is that there's barbaric things that modern Christians ignore // i.e. there's cherry picking, as proven conclusively in this post.
Now my question to you: why is it that your church allows women to speak in church despite the bible saying they cannot do so? (Assuming that they do allow them to speak in your church, and assuming that you attend church.). Do you think God would be very happy about your church ignoring "His" word, and in fact doing the exact opposite thing that "He" commands?
Well cited and a very logical progression of thought in your post.
My response is spoilered as to not clog up TL forum space
Now I will present you two general ways Christians interpret this. 1. "It's old / let's just ignore it because it's too much hassle / we won't follow it / let's be politically correct / the bible is written by men"
2. Let's find out why Paul wrote this, what is the cultural context, what reasons does he give and let's apply it to our church.
Bible-believing Christians will follow number 2.
In this case, theologians will tell you that Paul is replying to a previous letter from the Corinthian church regarding a whole host of issues that is destroying the church (A son having sex with stepmother + the church praises him for doing it?!?!?! + people getting drunk and discriminating the poor at the Lords Supper!?!?!! Hectic.)
So one of the issues presented were Women who seemed to be standing up, speaking out of turn, exposing their hair (against greek cultural norms) etc. Paul in turn, answers all of their questions and gives reasons every time. In the case of women speaking out of turn, please read all of ch 14. There has obviously been a problem with woman speaking out of turn to disrupt worship, which should be orderly. Disrupting worship meaning causing arguments, causing strife and leading to a disorderly gathering. After all, believers need to be of one body and one accord when coming together to worship God in an assembly.
I have to admit - Paul seems a little drastic in his response. But then he repeats it in another letter to Timothy re: church conduct - with the same message again. He cites genesis in that case I believe (1 Timothy 2).
Do I agree with Paul's explanation of why he gives this instruction (1 Timothy 2)? Yes.
Is it applicable to our churches? Maybe. In the current political climate, to tell women to be 100% quiet during the worship part of church is suicide for any pastor / group of elders. But to teach the women of the church to submit to their husbands in quietness and humility as is accorded of them, is a very strong biblical concept. So that is how most churches go about applying this passage.
So are we cherry picking? You could argue we are. But we understood the background to Paul's instructions (women were standing up, speaking out of turn and causing strife) and we know Paul's reasons for his instructions (cites Genesis). So our response is that women need to know that they are helpers and as helpers - not cause disorder during the formal part of a gathering. They can talk, but it must not cause disorder. If they have a question which they want to ask, they can ask their husbands after the formal part of the gathering finishes.
This is a highly fired up topic and what I've given is mostly my point of view. I have met many Christian girls who agree with this point of view, and many who would L- O - L at me for being crazy.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
I beg your pardon? What you just wrote here has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is recognizing flaws in your reasoning (about any possible subject) and being man enough to dismiss that reasoning, instead of turning a blind eye, even if you for a very long time thought your opinion was sound.
apologies to you thorakh for sparking some tempers. I will rephrase myself. So the premise here is that kids should not be "indoctrinated" with anything, but given the ability to decide for themselves what to believe, how to think and how to reason. So given that you have made your choice to reject Jesus, I was just wondering what kind of answers your "critical thinking" has since provided, to the biggest questions which we face in our lives. Namely why we are here, what is death, what happens after death etc.
I totally agree with you - every kid needs to be taught: Think before you believe. Investigate, test the evidence and try things out before you judge it. Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
My decision to reject any current mainstream religion was based on:
1) The fact that there are contradictions everywhere in the teachings of a religion, which are not supposed to be there if we are to take those teachings for the divine word of a god. Cherry picking is not acceptable with the word of a divine being, so you either practice everything, or you're not practicing the religion at all, but instead the view on life you find most acceptable and at that point you're not following the divine word of a god anymore, but your own reasoning.
If you do not view the Bible as the word of god and use that as an argument in favor of cherry picking, you are in fact not following a divine being anymore, but just some dudes who long ago wrote something in a book.
2) The lack of any real evidence for any religion and the fact that there is an infinite amount of imaginable gods (and that's only the 'god' explanation for the universe, there are an infinite amount of other imaginable and unimaginable explanations too). Why should religion X be the correct one while there is an infinite amount of other religions out there? For every religion you follow, there is an infinite amount of other imaginable religions that will condemn you to eternal suffering for following religion X. So if religion X happened to be true (a miniscule, almost nonexistent chance) and I did not follow it, the odds were stacked against me so heavily, I already lost the moment I was born.
3) I find lots of things in mainstream religions that I feel do not match with my morals and values.
How I got to my morals and values was simple reasoning: the natural purpose of life is to produce succesful offspring and further the species. Therefore we should promote peaceful coexistence with other humans to accelerate progress. We should also take care of the earth we live on to make sure other species don't die out due to our actions because biodiversity is important. Taking care of the earth directly helps us survive. From this line of reasoning follows that something that does not harm anything or anyone is not immoral (example: homosexuality, working on sundays) and this is the main part that doesn't match with many religious teachings.
If I get presented with a real argument against any kind of opinion I have, I change my opinion and that is intellectual honesty.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
I beg your pardon? What you just wrote here has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is recognizing flaws in your reasoning (about any possible subject) and being man enough to dismiss that reasoning, instead of turning a blind eye, even if you for a very long time thought your opinion was sound.
apologies to you thorakh for sparking some tempers. I will rephrase myself. So the premise here is that kids should not be "indoctrinated" with anything, but given the ability to decide for themselves what to believe, how to think and how to reason. So given that you have made your choice to reject Jesus, I was just wondering what kind of answers your "critical thinking" has since provided, to the biggest questions which we face in our lives. Namely why we are here, what is death, what happens after death etc.
I totally agree with you - every kid needs to be taught: Think before you believe. Investigate, test the evidence and try things out before you judge it. Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
I find the questions you name "biggest" as pretty irrelevant and useless or pretty easy to answer.
Why are we here ? Because we were born would be answer, but you probably did not mean it so literally (although I will point out that this is the only answer that is worth mentioning). If you meant it as what is our purpose then answers to that are plentiful. The reasonable one, because of absence of evidence is to assume no special purpose other than biological ones. But there could be others (whatever purpose the creator of Matrix, god(s), aliens, ... had when creating world/us), but so far they are improbable and have no evidence.
But if you meant the question in the philosophical "meaning of life" sense my answer is : that is meaningless question. Not every question that is gramatically correct has meaning. And not even every question that seems to have meaning has it. The second kind is basically the same as first. Your question is in that case similar to the question : How colors smell ?. The reason it does not seem so nonsensical on the first glance is that it, unlike the "smell" question, uses vague words on a very abstract level that people feel have meaning. But in reality they just extended the area of use of the word "meaning" to abstract concepts that we have no practical experience with thus preventing us to see that the question is as nonsensical as "How colors smell ?".
As for death it is the body stopping working as per dictionary definition ? And after this the body rots unless prevented from (freezing/..).
Why are you posting why some random person on youtube says about god or things he thinks are true/false.
I mean if you already received a lot of hate for this thread the first time, maybe you should stop bumping it and trying to get viewership for that guy.
On July 29 2011 08:24 Diks wrote: Yeah those videos are mainly educational. Might be a good idea to teach critical thinking at school, as i think that the more time you pass under a belief, the more difficult it will be to realise the fundations of the belief are based on suppositions. I watched the vods, nothing too new for me except the vod about coincidences. I really should have followed my stat's class
Indeed, critical thinking and openmindedness in relation to scepticism should be a requirement at every school, no child should pass through it's childhood without ever learning how to think critically about what it has been taught by it's parents, family, friends and every other source of information.
This is such an important skill to have, we have all these people completely ingrained into their own beliefs without questioning or challenging them, just blindly following them. And religion is absolutely not the only cause for this, every person can become stuck in his own values, opinions or beliefs.
I just find it appalling that there is no protection for childs from indoctrination, especially since children are so prone to a "it must be true because <insert authorititative person> said it" style of reasoning, which, if not remedied becomes part of their personality.
I was brought up in a moderately Christian way in my early childhood, going to a Christian school and I never doubted the existence of Jesus and God, simply because no one ever told me to think critically. Luckily for me, my parents were not really religious, it faded away over the years, and slowly I managed to start thinking about everything. Imagine if my parents would've been truly religious and would've sent me to a Christian high school too, I don't know if I'd been as intellectually honest as I am now.
Friend, so what does your intellectual honesty say about all the big questions in the world, e.g. What happens to us after we die? Why are we here? Why are humans so capable of loving each other, yet somehow mess things up at every turn?
If you have a worldview which answers those questions well, then you have been honest to yourself.
I beg your pardon? What you just wrote here has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is recognizing flaws in your reasoning (about any possible subject) and being man enough to dismiss that reasoning, instead of turning a blind eye, even if you for a very long time thought your opinion was sound.
apologies to you thorakh for sparking some tempers. I will rephrase myself. So the premise here is that kids should not be "indoctrinated" with anything, but given the ability to decide for themselves what to believe, how to think and how to reason. So given that you have made your choice to reject Jesus, I was just wondering what kind of answers your "critical thinking" has since provided, to the biggest questions which we face in our lives. Namely why we are here, what is death, what happens after death etc.
I totally agree with you - every kid needs to be taught: Think before you believe. Investigate, test the evidence and try things out before you judge it. Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
My decision to reject any current mainstream religion was based on:
1) The fact that there are contradictions everywhere in the teachings of a religion, which are not supposed to be there if we are to take those teachings for the divine word of a god. Cherry picking is not acceptable with the word of a divine being, so you either practice everything, or you're not practicing the religion at all, but instead the view on life you find most acceptable and at that point you're not following the divine word of a god anymore, but your own reasoning.
If you do not view the Bible as the word of god and use that as an argument in favor of cherry picking, you are in fact not following a divine being anymore, but just some dudes who long ago wrote something in a book.
2) The lack of any real evidence for any religion and the fact that there is an infinite amount of imaginable gods (and that's only the 'god' explanation for the universe, there are an infinite amount of other imaginable and unimaginable explanations too). Why should religion X be the correct one while there is an infinite amount of other religions out there? For every religion you follow, there is an infinite amount of other imaginable religions that will condemn you to eternal suffering for following religion X. So if religion X happened to be true (a miniscule, almost nonexistent chance) and I did not follow it, the odds were stacked against me so heavily, I already lost the moment I was born.
3) I find lots of things in mainstream religions that I feel do not match with my morals and values.
How I got to my morals and values was simple reasoning: the natural purpose of life is to produce succesful offspring and further the species. Therefore we should promote peaceful coexistence with other humans to accelerate progress. We should also take care of the earth we live on to make sure other species don't die out due to our actions because biodiversity is important. Taking care of the earth directly helps us survive. From this line of reasoning follows that something that does not harm anything or anyone is not immoral (example: homosexuality, working on sundays) and this is the main part that doesn't match with many religious teachings.
If I get presented with a real argument against any kind of opinion I have, I change my opinion and that is intellectual honesty.
I would heavily suggest not basing your morality on evolution as directly as you do. From evolutionary perspective furthering the species is pretty secondary goal that is subservient to the primary goal of spreading your own genes/having biggest reproductive success yourself mostly at the cost of other members of your species.
There is no reason to try and base your morality so deeply in evolution. Why not base your morality in ... morality. We as a social species are born with a core moral principles, if you take it as a base and extend them as far as possible you will find that it matches pretty well your current one. That is no accident, because nearly every human has his moral code from biological roots. The difference is how far they extended the core principles and how few exceptions they do. To illustrate what I mean. In prehistorical past those principles were mostly limited to your own little group, thus killing memebrs of others groups was pretty ok. As civilization goes on the group necessarily gets bigger and bigger and today it seems in that regard we are close to going from nations to whole of humanity ( I am talking about what is considered moral norm, not individual exception as there will always be people who kill,....). That is about extending the rules, now about exceptions. Some time ago there was exception made for black people allowing slavery, then it was removed. Now homosexuals are in many countries still an exception, but it is changing.
In the end if you extend the rules that you apply to people close to you to all people and remove all exceptions you get reasonable moral system. But to make it more formal so you can analyze complex situations logically you can use utilitarianism with utility based on minimalization of suffering to get similar moral code. Note that the base of that system, minimalization of suffering, is based on one core biological moral value and that is the reason why you get so similar results to our innate moral code.
On July 31 2011 21:32 thehitman wrote: Why are you posting why some random person on youtube says about god or things he thinks are true/false.
I mean if you already received a lot of hate for this thread the first time, maybe you should stop bumping it and trying to get viewership for that guy.
I didn't recieve any hate, it's just people like the videos and people who don't. Can't expect everyone to love or hate. It is what it is and i think this is good enough subject to discuss and the videos are educational.
Does anyone else find it odd that the opening videos of this series claim that we need to be free of bias to truly think critically and then the rest of the videos are pushing an obviously atheistic agenda? It seems like he was refuting bias for others to imply that he is unbiased to strengthen his argument. Im an atheist here and I agree with basically everything he said, I just find it a little off that he tried to display himself as unbiased, because he obviously has an agenda.
However I only saw the videos posted on the thread so I'll go check out his youtube channel to see if he has a broader selection of topics.
On August 01 2011 00:20 ScoringFire wrote: Does anyone else find it odd that the opening videos of this series claim that we need to be free of bias to truly think critically and then the rest of the videos are pushing an obviously atheistic agenda? It seems like he was refuting bias for others to imply that he is unbiased to strengthen his argument. Im an atheist here and I agree with basically everything he said, I just find it a little off that he tried to display himself as unbiased, because he obviously has an agenda.
However I only saw the videos posted on the thread so I'll go check out his youtube channel to see if he has a broader selection of topics.
His agenda is to promote critical thinking and skepticism, it is only natural that you will get an atheist 'vibe' from his videos.
On August 01 2011 00:20 ScoringFire wrote: Does anyone else find it odd that the opening videos of this series claim that we need to be free of bias to truly think critically and then the rest of the videos are pushing an obviously atheistic agenda? It seems like he was refuting bias for others to imply that he is unbiased to strengthen his argument. Im an atheist here and I agree with basically everything he said, I just find it a little off that he tried to display himself as unbiased, because he obviously has an agenda.
However I only saw the videos posted on the thread so I'll go check out his youtube channel to see if he has a broader selection of topics.
Where your argument fails is when you claim that atheism has no better scientific backing than other hypothesis. I reccommend reading some Dawkins to remedy this ailment.
On August 01 2011 00:20 ScoringFire wrote: Does anyone else find it odd that the opening videos of this series claim that we need to be free of bias to truly think critically and then the rest of the videos are pushing an obviously atheistic agenda? It seems like he was refuting bias for others to imply that he is unbiased to strengthen his argument. Im an atheist here and I agree with basically everything he said, I just find it a little off that he tried to display himself as unbiased, because he obviously has an agenda.
However I only saw the videos posted on the thread so I'll go check out his youtube channel to see if he has a broader selection of topics.
Where your argument fails is when you claim that atheism has no better scientific backing than other hypothesis. I reccommend reading some Dawkins to remedy this ailment.
Yes it's better keep searching for answers then to throw in with god and give up. Also why do we need to say people without religions are atheists. Shouldn't it be the people WITH religions who need to be labelled and "atheists" are just people in general?
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
If a woman births a male child, she's A-OK.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
But if a woman births a female child, she's considered unclean.
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
How is that anything but an attempt to promote a social message that women are somehow inferior?
Here's some more versions representing female inferiority:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
I could go on.
Intellectual honesty here, would be you having the self-awareness and humility to admit that you have cherry-picked the parts of Holy Doctrine that you like, that fit with your morality and that are conducive to your life. Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance will be that part of your mind telling you to strength your defenses and attempt to justify each and every passage I quoted one by one in order to ease the conflict in your own mind.
Thing is, God didn't change how society views women over the last two millennium. We did. This being tells us we should behave one way, while we've discovered that in order to produce a healthy society and live in our current world in harmony, we have to behave in a completely different one.
The Bible teaches some good moral stories, but that's all it is to me. Stories passed down all the way from 2,000 years ago to teach us the mistakes of our forebears. But, turning those stories into deeply held beliefs is a dangerous idea to me, because if you devoutly follow those teachings, you're likely to ignore the lessons we've learned over the last 2,000 years if they happen to conflict and in trying to uphold them, you're doing nothing more than disrupting our evolving society with outdated ideas.
On July 31 2011 14:52 MrTortoise wrote: The reason why people confuse faith with religion is that faith is a central tennet of religion.
For someone who thinks critically the essence of religion is a set of beliefs and behaviours (which covers thought patterns) that have no reasonable (that is evidence based) explanation.
As such FAITH itself is the very core of religion.
If you dont believe me ehy not go read a HUGE chunk of philosophy over the years ... the majority of philosophy is one side trying to say faith gurantees things we cant prove ... the other side says that bullshit and is extremley unhelpful in understanding things
To deny faith and religion are the same thing is just plain wrong.
Up to this point, you've been coherent, and largely correct. However, you are wrong in your assessment of the relationship between faith and religion. Religion is impossible without faith, but one does not need to have a religion to have faith. People without religion often have faith in other people, expressed through love or friendship. These things do not require religious belief to exist.
On July 31 2011 14:52 MrTortoise wrote: If you think you do not haver a religion you are very very wrong. Religion is ermbedded in our culture and language and out baqsic assumptions about the world. You could even say our perception of the world is shaped due to our upbringing in societies assumptions about everything - and that is a religious frameowrk that you CANNOT avoid.
Religion is an eroding edifice of a past that this world direly needs to let go of. It is not as widely influential as you claim, because people ignore the teachings and doctrines of religions on a constant, daily basis. Therefor, to put forth the assertion that it is not only influential, but so much so that I am undoubtedly a captive of its anti-progressivist propaganda trap, is utterly ludicrous. I can reject, at my own discretion, any ideology I see as a retardation of intellectual progress, whether that ideology be religious or otherwise. That's what critical thinking is all about.
On July 31 2011 14:52 MrTortoise wrote: Dont get me wrong, using eason is still faith based .... the point is though that it criticises and aims to improive itself. constantly. Wheras religious beliefs do the opposite, through faith they prove themselves and so fly completley in the face of all evidence as a way to validate their existence. By saying 'No, This' in the face of truth they are affirming their existence.
This is literally beyond comprehension. Reason is not faith based. It does not take faith for me to see that putting one thing and another together makes two of them. I am not required to believe anything other than the reality of the world around me to see that gravity, indeed, does influence each and every object that exists in the world. Reason doesn't need to improve itself, it simply needs to be. Proper reason is essentially perfect, because it is free of the imperfections of fallacies and subjectivism. Again, 1+1=2 does not need improving. it will always be correct.
Faith, on the other hand, is a fallacy. One cannot believe in things that they cannot prove are true, or they are lying to themselves. You can never prove that 1+1 = apple, no matter how much you have faith that it's true.
Religion is more like having the answer, lets say apple, and then trying to figure out a question that fits the answer. That way you can always adjust the premise of your faith.
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe.
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
There is a difference between believing there is no god, and not believing in a god.
One is an active belief in the non-existence of a god, and the other is not holding a belief in a god.
Atheists, as people who engage in critical thinking, do not hold the active belief, but rather, the passive belief because critical thinking, which entails skepticism, gravitates toward not believing in something for which there is no proof to. QualiaSoup does not use science to validate his religious beliefs, or rather non-beliefs; QualiaSoup invokes critical thinking in the viewer to unveil the ignorance in religious beliefs.
Bertrand Russel has an excellent thought experiment, in which he says
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
On August 01 2011 02:05 Blyadischa wrote: There is a difference between believing there is no god, and not believing in a god.
One is an active belief in the non-existence of a god, and the other is not holding a belief in a god.
Atheists, as people who engage in critical thinking, do not hold the active belief, but rather, the passive belief because critical thinking, which entails skepticism, gravitates toward not believing in something for which there is no proof to. QualiaSoup does not use science to validate his religious beliefs, or rather non-beliefs; QualiaSoup invokes critical thinking in the viewer to unveil the ignorance in religious beliefs.
I can agree in part to what you're saying, except with the generalization that "atheists do not hold the active belief". That is clearly not true in my experience. Also, atheism has two definitions
1) Belief that no god exists (which is a statement about the nature of god) 2) Absence of a believe in a god
I guess we can agree that neither of us has had a comprehensive view while making their post. By the way my context were the posts about atheism vs religion that have popped up in this thread, not the video in the OP.
As for ignorance in religious beliefs, my position is that religion should be criticized for its concrete negative effect on the person and society, not for its mythology (origin of the world, man, etc)
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe.
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
Not believing in God(s) is as much of a "belief" as not collecting stamps is a "hobby". Atheism is the logical conclusion one should reach by looking at the current evidence of our understanding of reality. You can call that childish, but from scientific point of view the chance for there being a God (especially a specific God, like God from the Bible) is about the same as for flying spaghetti monster.
Science actually did something beneficial (and by something I mean mostly everything) for the human race and will continue to do so because the methods science uses to explain and understand stuff actually make sense and requires one to back up their claims.
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe.
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
but from scientific point of view the chance for there being a God (especially a specific God, like God from the Bible) is about the same as for flying spaghetti monster.
I have no issue with atheism as non-belief. This necessarily entails accepting that you don't know anything and thus avoid making any statements about the nature of god.
I have an issue with atheism as belief system because it's just religion rehashed.
On August 01 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote: I have no issue with atheism as non-belief. This necessarily entails accepting that you don't know anything and thus avoid making any statements about the nature of god.
I have an issue with atheism as belief system because it's just religion rehashed.
If you actually read what people above you stated, you'd see what you just said is very wrong.
On August 01 2011 02:53 PanN wrote: Religion rehashed? Please.
Yes. I have observed how atheists of the belief system type and religious people tend to behave in similar ways.
Religious people tend to look down upon those not of their religion because they consider them morally inferior or deficient. Atheist of the belief system type tend to look down upon those not of their belief system because they consider them intellectually inferior or deficient.
In both cases, these two groups are equally convinced of knowing the truth they feel their behavior is justified.
In both cases, the belief system becomes an extended identity. The members will proudly announce they are religious or atheists.
My own personal conclusion is the belief hardly matters, the human desire to avoid uncertainty and seek security in common beliefs is what counts.
On August 01 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote: I have no issue with atheism as non-belief. This necessarily entails accepting that you don't know anything and thus avoid making any statements about the nature of god.
I have an issue with atheism as belief system because it's just religion rehashed.
If you actually read what people above you stated, you'd see what you just said is very wrong.
Religion rehashed? Please.
It's true enough actually, if you choose not to believe in any form of god that's cool.
If you believe there isn't any and then form a little sect where you meet up with other people feeling the same (or generally make an organisation for it) and to top that off you try feeding your belief to other people, religion is EXACTLY what ahteism becomes.
At any rate why would something about critical thinking turn to this, you can only think critically with hipothesis you can take beeing true, with religion you can't proove or disproove any kind of logical starting point thus you can't think critically. Just as god's existence can't be prooven or disprooven.
I don't want to come across as all cold, aloof and rationale.
I think everyone needs beliefs. Pick what you like. I just think we should be honest about the nature of our beliefs, so that we can gently smile at them like to a little child and avoid becoming overly attached, emotionally entangled (and thus slaves) to them.
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Not another "religion-implies-Christianity" post.
Scientifically speaking, there are an infinite number of versions of this universe where there is a God and an infinite amount with no God. Until an observation is made OF God, or quantum theory is changed, this will remain true
By God I mean a loosely defined creator-of-worlds.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
You didn't understand what I said. Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise. Arguing whether that means it's evidence of absence or not is just philosophic semantics and not science.
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe.
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
Nope. Look up "burden of proof."
If you cannot answer something in any way that relies on logic, then it does not give you liberty to insert a nonsensical answer of your own (i.e. God) and act like it is a valid solution. Calling an absurd idea "absurd" is not being closed-minded; it's being rational. Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise.
No.
There is absence of evidence that black people's lower mean IQ in apposition to other races is due to environment/nutrition/schooling/etc solely and not genetics. This claim, however, is not considered to be false/discarded simply due to the lack of evidence. There is also a lack of evidence that their lower mean IQ has a genetic component. This hypothesis is not discarded, either.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get why what you said was inaccurate.
A claim will be FAPP assumed false until proven otherwise if it's not perceived to be parsimonious.
And no, I'm not racist in any way. It's just the first example that came to mind that relates to science.
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe.
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
Nope. Look up "burden of proof."
If you cannot answer something in any way that relies on logic, then it does not give you liberty to insert a nonsensical answer of your own (i.e. God) and act like it is a valid solution. Calling an absurd idea "absurd" is not being closed-minded; it's being rational. Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
We're actually in full agreement if you reread my posts.
The behavior you see in religious people, I see in some atheists as well (perhaps worse since they reach for science to validate their belief, while science can't do such a thing).
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise.
No.
There is absence of evidence that black people's lower mean IQ in apposition to other races is due to environment/nutrition/schooling/etc solely and not genetics. This claim, however, is not considered to be false/discarded simply due to the lack of evidence. There is also a lack of evidence that their lower mean IQ has a genetic component. This hypothesis is not discarded, either.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get why what you said was inaccurate.
And no, I'm not racist in any way. It's just the first example that came to mind that relates to science.
There may not be concrete evidence like experiments, but we do have logical evidence to make it an educated hypothesis as opposed to an unfounded hypothesis such as god. We can point to those factors (environment/nutrition/schooling) and see how they would lead to lower IQ scores, and, most importantly, we know those factors exist.
There's a difference between looking at a situation and looking at possible and observable factors that could have caused it, and looking at a situation and crafting an absurd story to explain it that has no evidence. It's like the difference between proposing that gravity is caused by a graviton particle vs. proposing that it is caused by invisible gnomes pulling masses toward each other.
I'll add my 2 cents on the topic, from a perspective of a peer, that is all. I have tried to have many discussions; on this forum, and mainly from peers and authoritative figures, in a manner that is logical, as well as being on a personal level.
I believe that logically you cannot discuss evolution or religion. A set amount of both observable and non-observable perceptions can be made about both subjects.
Common ancestor ideas make sense in certain areas, like primate to human because of such similar figures, and chromosome numbers etc. However, lineages such as Chirpotera (bats) advanced forms of sonar refute such things.
Deist ideas such as the repetitive numerical natural phenomenon such as the Fibonacci sequence or Mandelbrot's fractal equation support their own ideas, while lack of direct observable supernatural entities refutes such things.
Dawkin's meme idea really supports this divide as well. The larger each school of thought grows the more pre-determined and self destructing means in which knowledge is obtained arise from the memes created by each.
In a community (biology), where you are either a lump-er or a split-er, I feel that these critical social ideas need to be lumped together. I continue to see arguments arise from cultural and societal memes divide the community that was once united under the idea of obtaining knowledge. The truth aspect of knowledge destroys the intrinsic value of all knowledge.
I leave this final thought, if we are to continue to thrive, what will be a greater perspective, one that embraces the intricate differences in individual conscious? or one that rejects the aformentioned and forces a singular conscious? I will be embracing the differences, and obtaining more knowledge. Peace
edit: apparently in 2004, someone found an eocene bat with underdeveloped echolocation, but bone structure capable of flight, and was published in nature around 2008; However, there are still nuances in the fossil that suggest some kind echolocating effects in its throat.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise.
No.
There is absence of evidence that black people's lower mean IQ in apposition to other races is due to environment/nutrition/schooling/etc solely and not genetics. This claim, however, is not considered to be false/discarded simply due to the lack of evidence. There is also a lack of evidence that their lower mean IQ has a genetic component. This hypothesis is not discarded, either.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get why what you said was inaccurate.
And no, I'm not racist in any way. It's just the first example that came to mind that relates to science.
There may not be concrete evidence like experiments, but we do have logical evidence to make it an educated hypothesis as opposed to an unfounded hypothesis such as god. We can point to those factors (environment/nutrition/schooling) and see how they would lead to lower IQ scores, and, most importantly, we know those factors exist.
There's a difference between looking at a situation and looking at possible and observable factors that could have caused it, and looking at a situation and crafting an absurd story to explain it that has no evidence. It's like the difference between proposing that gravity is caused by a graviton particle vs. proposing that it is caused by invisible gnomes pulling masses toward each other.
I dislike this analogy at the end of your post. Gnomes being responsible for gravity is a less probable (w.r.t. truthfulness) claim than the claim that a certain theism is true. The reason is that gravity is accompanied by 3 other forces that are demonstrated to be caused by particles. We then know what is parsimonious given consideration of very similar phenomenon. We have no such comparison with the creation/start/instert-other-word-here of the universe. It is a phenomenon with nothing to compare to.
If we had a primitive knowledge of physics, then yes, I would have to agree that gnomes causing gravity is just as likely as a biblical God existing.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise.
No.
There is absence of evidence that black people's lower mean IQ in apposition to other races is due to environment/nutrition/schooling/etc solely and not genetics. This claim, however, is not considered to be false/discarded simply due to the lack of evidence. There is also a lack of evidence that their lower mean IQ has a genetic component. This hypothesis is not discarded, either.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get why what you said was inaccurate.
And no, I'm not racist in any way. It's just the first example that came to mind that relates to science.
There may not be concrete evidence like experiments, but we do have logical evidence to make it an educated hypothesis as opposed to an unfounded hypothesis such as god. We can point to those factors (environment/nutrition/schooling) and see how they would lead to lower IQ scores, and, most importantly, we know those factors exist.
There's a difference between looking at a situation and looking at possible and observable factors that could have caused it, and looking at a situation and crafting an absurd story to explain it that has no evidence. It's like the difference between proposing that gravity is caused by a graviton particle vs. proposing that it is caused by invisible gnomes pulling masses toward each other.
I dislike this analogy at the end of your post. Gnomes being responsible for gravity is a less probable (w.r.t. truthfulness) claim than the claim that a certain theism is true. The reason is that gravity is accompanied by 3 other forces that are demonstrated to be caused by particles. We then know what is parsimonious given consideration of very similar phenomenon. We have no such comparison with the creation/start/instert-other-word-here of the universe. It is a phenomenon with nothing to compare to.
If we had a primitive knowledge of physics, then yes, I would have to agree that gnomes causing gravity is just as likely as a biblical God existing.
When we speak of probability we are discussing the calculable probability of something. The real truth is 100% probable since it's the truth. But since god and gnomes alike lack any amount of empirical evidence we'll conclude through reason that they are equally improbable - whilst this statement isn't true literally since probabilities don't really exist, it is sufficiently accurate to demonstrate that both ideas are unscientific.
On August 01 2011 02:53 PanN wrote: Religion rehashed? Please.
Yes. I have observed how atheists of the belief system type and religious people tend to behave in similar ways.
Religious people tend to look down upon those not of their religion because they consider them morally inferior or deficient. Atheist of the belief system type tend to look down upon those not of their belief system because they consider them intellectually inferior or deficient.
In both cases, these two groups are equally convinced of knowing the truth they feel their behavior is justified.
In both cases, the belief system becomes an extended identity. The members will proudly announce they are religious or atheists.
My own personal conclusion is the belief hardly matters, the human desire to avoid uncertainty and seek security in common beliefs is what counts.
Hence, religion rehashed.
Ah so because people behave similarly the factual accuracy of both systems is the same ? There are many different flavors of atheism and all of them are better than any religious view as far as rational approach goes.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions.
Did you hear about Occam's razor ? That is if we consider God a hypothesis. If we consider his existence, then we are talking about facts and then you are right absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence means existence of something is highly doubtful and since god in all religions also has many attributes that mostly are impossible or improbable it is a good guess to have probability of god's existence close to zero which is good enough of a conclusion.
Technically speaking, the only thing I am not agnostic towards, is my own existence. Cogito ergo sum, the only thing that is absolutely certain.
Of course this is not a practical line of thought.
Personally, I believe, maybe more like hope, (yes, having a bit of irrational, illogical faith) in a form of reincarnation. Why? Because it sounds comfortable to me and because I cannot imagine not-existing after I die.
However, I am of course not going to tell others that they should believe the same as I do, as that would be ridiculous.
I do admit that I have no base for this belief and I do not think the probability of it being true is very high, so I am still honest to myself. Maybe it isn't even belief, but just hoping it to be true.
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe.
This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief.
I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing.
Nope. Look up "burden of proof."
If you cannot answer something in any way that relies on logic, then it does not give you liberty to insert a nonsensical answer of your own (i.e. God) and act like it is a valid solution. Calling an absurd idea "absurd" is not being closed-minded; it's being rational. Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
We're actually in full agreement if you reread my posts.
The behavior you see in religious people, I see in some atheists as well (perhaps worse since they reach for science to validate their belief, while science can't do such a thing).
Err, no, I disagree with pretty much everything you've written.
Saying "there is no God" is not inserting a nonsensical answer. It is not inserting an answer at all. It is simply the default position when not presented with any evidence to the contrary.
Allow me to be yet another atheist to make this clarification. Atheism is not a Thing. It is not a religion, not a belief, not a belief system. It is the LACK of a belief. Accusing atheists of resorting to science to defend their atheism is nonsensical. There is nothing to defend, no position being asserted. Religious people say `X exists'. I say 'show me' and they can't. Until they can, belief in any of these entities is irrational and unjustified.
If I tell you a purple dog exists and you don't believe me, is it up to you to prove to me that not a single purple dog exists in the entire universe? Or is it up to me to show you a purple dog? What about bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and werewolves, is it up to non believers in these things to show their non existence? What about the gods of other religions, can you prove beyond all doubt they don't exist? Should you believe in Allah and Vishnu and Shiva etc. until you can prove their non existence beyond all doubt? Or would you expect the believer wanting to convince you to provide their evidence?The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person saying an entity exists.
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Why?
All of us have our own asses, and nobody cares about the other`s, that`s why. Or do you?
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Why?
All of us have our own asses, and nobody cares about the other`s, that`s why. Or do you?
Yup. That's why humans talk about things. Funny that.
If no one cared, why would this thread have lasted for 67 pages?
I have no problems with religion. If you want to believe a large bear wearing a tuxedo created the grand canyon so he could use it as a waterside, that's fine by me. However, I get annoyed when people allow their religious convictions to interfere with scientific findings. I hate to point fingers, but this is exactly what's happening in the U.S. when it comes to the debate between creationism and evolution.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why...
So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems.
The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification.
Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus.
(B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations.
I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now.
Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society).
The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this.
I haven't looked at the sources, but are you aware of the Dalai Lama's IQ? I mean, hes pretty damn intelligent, and he's a religious leader. I am SKEPTICAL about the factual accuracy of the correlation between IQ and religiousness.
On looking at the graph, its clear that a huge significant of believers are actually truly mentally retarded, and only towards the average IQ does the graph spread out some to be more equal all over. that's not really a surprise since mentally retarded people cannot use the same capacity of thinking and maturation of the mind to start doubting and rebelling against things we know, such as the case of teenage years. They rarely go through this phase because they are stuck with a child-like mind, which believes everything its told from authority figures, and anyone with any level of higher intelligence will appear to them as an authority figure. Thus, they will never lose god once they find god, due to being taught about god. And since IQ is a genetic relation, people with lower IQs will be more likely to believe, and to give birth to children, and then teach their children of similarly low IQ the same stuff about god.
The graph therefor does explain some sociological things, and gives us an indication as to how religions can grow, but it does NOT imply that people who believe in god are stupid for doing so.
Interesting Factoid: Bonobos and other research primates that have an IQ which is around 80 are significantly better at problem solving than the average human, with their preconceived notions and internalized thoughtless ideas that they learned osmotic-ally from growing up in society, to particular parents, with particular ideals, and particular education systems, and particular social groups, etc etc. I believe one of those videos (where the sunbather is naked and you can react with disgust as Parent or shame as Child) strikes on the same point of internalized beliefs that stem not from reason but from past culture.
On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why...
So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems.
The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification.
Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus.
(B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations.
I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now.
Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society).
The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this.
I haven't looked at the sources, but are you aware of the Dalai Lama's IQ? I mean, hes pretty damn intelligent, and he's a religious leader. I am SKEPTICAL about the factual accuracy of the correlation between IQ and religiousness.
On looking at the graph, its clear that a huge amount of believers are actually truly mentally retarded, and only towards the average IQ does the graph spread out some to be more equal all over. that's not really a surprise since mentally retarded people cannot use the same capacity of thinking and maturation of the mind to start doubting and rebelling against things we know, such as the case of teenage years. They rarely go through this phase because they are stuck with a child-like mind, which believes everything its told from authority figures, and anyone with any level of higher intelligence will appear to them as an authority figure. Thus, they will never lose god once they find god, due to being taught about god.
It's not the leaders who are proven to be the dumb ones
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Not involved really, but you're off a bit.
Evolution is not a theory. It is a scientific theory. There are very, VERY important key differences.
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
But if a woman births a female child, she's considered unclean.
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
How is that anything but an attempt to promote a social message that women are somehow inferior?
Here's some more versions representing female inferiority:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
I could go on.
Intellectual honesty here, would be you having the self-awareness and humility to admit that you have cherry-picked the parts of Holy Doctrine that you like, that fit with your morality and that are conducive to your life. Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance will be that part of your mind telling you to strength your defenses and attempt to justify each and every passage I quoted one by one in order to ease the conflict in your own mind.
Thing is, God didn't change how society views women over the last two millennium. We did. This being tells us we should behave one way, while we've discovered that in order to produce a healthy society and live in our current world in harmony, we have to behave in a completely different one.
The Bible teaches some good moral stories, but that's all it is to me. Stories passed down all the way from 2,000 years ago to teach us the mistakes of our forebears. But, turning those stories into deeply held beliefs is a dangerous idea to me, because if you devoutly follow those teachings, you're likely to ignore the lessons we've learned over the last 2,000 years if they happen to conflict and in trying to uphold them, you're doing nothing more than disrupting our evolving society with outdated ideas.
we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread. I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels.
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
But if a woman births a female child, she's considered unclean.
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
How is that anything but an attempt to promote a social message that women are somehow inferior?
Here's some more versions representing female inferiority:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
I could go on.
Intellectual honesty here, would be you having the self-awareness and humility to admit that you have cherry-picked the parts of Holy Doctrine that you like, that fit with your morality and that are conducive to your life. Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance will be that part of your mind telling you to strength your defenses and attempt to justify each and every passage I quoted one by one in order to ease the conflict in your own mind.
Thing is, God didn't change how society views women over the last two millennium. We did. This being tells us we should behave one way, while we've discovered that in order to produce a healthy society and live in our current world in harmony, we have to behave in a completely different one.
The Bible teaches some good moral stories, but that's all it is to me. Stories passed down all the way from 2,000 years ago to teach us the mistakes of our forebears. But, turning those stories into deeply held beliefs is a dangerous idea to me, because if you devoutly follow those teachings, you're likely to ignore the lessons we've learned over the last 2,000 years if they happen to conflict and in trying to uphold them, you're doing nothing more than disrupting our evolving society with outdated ideas.
we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread. I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels.
Peace out
ahhh. TA:Youtube game. this is what the video was talking about.
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed.
If you think a religion will provide a more accurate answer to scientific questions you will find yourself arguing in vain against very basic findings that contradict your views
If you think science will fulfill any kind of spiritual fulfillment you're seeking, you will find that you're lying to yourself.
That's how I see the relationship between science and religion. They are two completely separate things and comparing them is as pointless as trying to compare history and mathematics
On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote: Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too!
They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this!
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in.
I think there's a very big difference between an evolution of ideas, and people picking and choosing which parts they like.
One minute an anti-gay Christian will quote from Leviticus the passage saying words to the effect of "No man shall lie with another man, as they do a woman. For this is an abomination.", while simultaneously dismissing all of the passages of the Bible that seek to dominate and control women.
Last I checked, the Bible itself hasn't changed in a fair number of years. Only the methods and applications in which people apply its teachings to their lives.
Sigh, @Arbitrageur, If you really want to know what CHristians think on the passages which you have just quoted, shoot me a message. Trolling is fun and I guess it makes you feel very smart when you troll the bible.
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
Picking verses from the bible that correlate with how you want to perceive the bible is practically the definition of cherry picking. While the first little part "husbands, love your wives" is a great starter and general thought process- it only takes 1 verse that is completely sexist or racist or what have you from one book to discredit the entire book and the different books in the bible are full of them.
On August 01 2011 15:28 JesusOurSaviour wrote: we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread. I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels.
Peace out
Oh that's funny, cause i just googled "bad gospel passages" and found this as one of the top hits.
This thread promotes you to actually research the things you believe in, and apply rational, critical and logical thought, supported by evidence, to come allow you to believe what you believe. The fact of the matter is that if those things DID exist when it comes to proving that the Christian (or any ) religion is correct, i can assure you i would be a believer (more of a 'knower'?). You have the ability to look up everything positive and negative in the bible, with a google search that will take you less than the time it takes you to take a whizz. Just because you dismiss it to be a "dawkins / average athiests objections to the bible", doesn't make any of the things he is saying less true. Put whatever spin you like on it, but i can't ever see a context in which slavery is right.
I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
the only thing i dont like about logic is that the only thing you can use to prove logic is true is logic itself. seems kinda self defeating. its not logical to believe something that is proven through circular reasoning
As a universitystudent I love skepticism and critical thinking. Hell, im gonna make a living of it in the long run. This, though, I cannot unsee: conscience is regarded a need in order to produce science. However science cannot explain conscience.
Im all up for skepticism and critical thinking, but more so about skepticism and critical thinking of the matter itself. In so doing, you become lesser of an arrogant prick. Because honestly, if you think you are a fucking wise-ass, just because you only regard scientifically approved results as the one and only truth, who's the one-sided dimwit then?
Who believes in 'truth' anyways. Just use your third eye.
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote: I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
Um.....
If God, like, talked to me.... or just showed he was there. I would have no prob accepting him.
The problem is... He doesnt talk, ever. Nor does he show himself, so I have no reason believe in him.
No close mindedness here, I'm just not down for one sided relationships.
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote: I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
You've put your ass on the highest pedestal of all. The everyone's a dipshit but me stance.
On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why...
So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems.
The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification.
Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus.
(B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations.
I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now.
Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society).
The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this.
I haven't looked at the sources, but are you aware of the Dalai Lama's IQ? I mean, hes pretty damn intelligent, and he's a religious leader. I am SKEPTICAL about the factual accuracy of the correlation between IQ and religiousness.
On looking at the graph, its clear that a huge significant of believers are actually truly mentally retarded, and only towards the average IQ does the graph spread out some to be more equal all over. that's not really a surprise since mentally retarded people cannot use the same capacity of thinking and maturation of the mind to start doubting and rebelling against things we know, such as the case of teenage years. They rarely go through this phase because they are stuck with a child-like mind, which believes everything its told from authority figures, and anyone with any level of higher intelligence will appear to them as an authority figure. Thus, they will never lose god once they find god, due to being taught about god. And since IQ is a genetic relation, people with lower IQs will be more likely to believe, and to give birth to children, and then teach their children of similarly low IQ the same stuff about god.
The graph therefor does explain some sociological things, and gives us an indication as to how religions can grow, but it does NOT imply that people who believe in god are stupid for doing so.
Interesting Factoid: Bonobos and other research primates that have an IQ which is around 80 are significantly better at problem solving than the average human, with their preconceived notions and internalized thoughtless ideas that they learned osmotic-ally from growing up in society, to particular parents, with particular ideals, and particular education systems, and particular social groups, etc etc. I believe one of those videos (where the sunbather is naked and you can react with disgust as Parent or shame as Child) strikes on the same point of internalized beliefs that stem not from reason but from past culture.
1) I never claimed that the distribution of religious individual's IQ is leptokurtic in that no high IQ religious individuals exist. So I'm not sure why you brought up the Dalai Lama's apparent intelligence. 2) You claim you are skeptical of the factual accuracy of the statistically significant correlation between religiosity and IQ. - Do you have any references? 3) You say "but it does NOT imply that people who believe in God are stupid for doing so." Yes, you are right. But it does imply that people who believe in a theism are more stupid than people who are agnostic or atheist, so long as low IQ people can legitimately be labeled as stupid. - Do you have reason to suspect the studies in the primary sources of that wikipedia article are flawed, either in their experimental methodology or use of statistical tools? 3) The rest
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote: I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
You've put your ass on the highest pedestal of all. The everyone's a dipshit but me stance.
Great videos and nice that somebody took the time to make these, because the point is so very important. If people would be less eager to see the world in the black-white perspective the world would be a better place. We must always question our own beliefs.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
The only reason atheism seems like a religion is because there are a lot of religious people. Everyone in the world are aflyinghippoists, yet noone consciously admits it. A non-belief cannot have a belief-system and the only reason some religious people are fed up with atheists is because the atheists don't adhere to their rules.
A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread. I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels.
Why not ask Krishna, Odin, Zeuz or even Gandalf, Yoda, Bob and Santa?
If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed.
Are you some sort of authority in this matter? Have you done any research to back up these claims?
If you think a religion will provide a more accurate answer to scientific questions you will find yourself arguing in vain against very basic findings that contradict your views
If you think science will fulfill any kind of spiritual fulfillment you're seeking, you will find that you're lying to yourself.
I think that you're making claims you cannot back up with facts.
That's how I see the relationship between science and religion. They are two completely separate things and comparing them is as pointless as trying to compare history and mathematics
This is pretty much why religion still exists in society. People fool themselves into thinking religion is in some way something more than just fables and is immune to scrutiny.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
"I know everything about everyone and am therefore holier than though." Ok, please don't waste our time by posting in this thread.
the only thing i dont like about logic is that the only thing you can use to prove logic is true is logic itself. seems kinda self defeating. its not logical to believe something that is proven through circular reasoning
You use -reality- to prove logic. Logic = Reality. (Unless we're talking about instinctual logic)
Sorry if this post is just a bunch of quotemashing but I really don't think a thread about "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" deserves people who post completely unjustified claims.
Mecker I hope you realize that you are doing the exact same thing as the person you're attacking. To help you realize it, let me play devil's advocate to show you:
The only reason atheism seems like a religion is because there are a lot of religious people.
Completely subjective statement and easily ridiculed by something such as "Show me the evidence for this".
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
Another opinion. You ask for facts to back up his claim, how about you present some facts to back up yours.
And so on and so forth. I think everybody gets the drift by now. What a thread about critical thinking and skepticism really needs is a good discussion, not a disgusting argumentative style that consists of picking posts apart and not trying to understand what the other person is actually saying.
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements.
Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
Actually it's impossible to be sure that 'everything can be approached by science'. Science only deals in the observable, and since it is conceivably possible that something exists which can't be observed you can never make the statement 'everything can be approached by science.
If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed.
Are you some sort of authority in this matter? Have you done any research to back up these claims?
First of all, authority is entirely irrelevant in the correctness of an argument. Secondly, not everything requires research/facts to back it up.
The correctness of his two statements: "If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed." can be determined by simply defining the key words in each statement. Religion typically involves belief in the supernatural, and since the supernatural is simply 'beyond natural', and since science deals only in the observation of the natural, his 1st statement could be said to hold some truth.
Anyway, I'm only posting this because I get sick of people who do the whole "Can you back that up? Where are your sources? Which scientific expert told you that?" and somehow think it's a legitimate or, more importantly, useful way of arguing on a forum of non-experts.
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote: Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
Watch this and it explains what we know of currently about the universes origins. The lecture addresses the 'something from nothing' argument you are putting forward. Before that, the answer was "I don't' know" ... and what's wrong with that? Why can't it be OK to say we don't know about a topic, instead of blinding assuming an irrational conclusion? Making assumptions about a God making something from nothing ( which is a contradiction, if you follow the 'cause and effect' rational, because my next question is, who created God?), will get you nowhere, because there isn't anything to support the claim ... "I can't think of a way it can happen, therefore God". I realize you never said anything about a God doing it, but I assume that's what your getting at. Either way, check the video, Lawrence Krauss is a goddamn genius ... hope you enjoy ^_^.
On August 01 2011 20:56 Lassepetri wrote: Pure logical thinking is for machines. You're not a machine, are you
That is potentially the most dangerous, backwards thinking I have ever seen
Then you are easily scared. Always resolving to logic for answers is as dimwitted as believing the bible.
Logic is a far better way to find answers than the bible. Logic allows one to use reason to ascertain facts or evaluate decisions in a structured manner. Perhaps you could provide a decent reason as to why one should use logic. On the other hand, believing the bible fully is putting faith in something unproven, that is of questionable origin; there are no proper thought processes, and information is just blindly accepted.
Just because machines think logically does not imply that pure logical thinking is for machines only. Humans can and should use logical thinking when dealing with facts as well as important situations. Emotions and all do give humans individuality, but are best reserved for personal matters.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements.
Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
Hence the "find me a Precambrian chicken" part. Falsifiability.. love it.
On August 01 2011 10:07 AraMoOse wrote: Allow me to be yet another atheist to make this clarification. Atheism is not a Thing. It is not a religion, not a belief, not a belief system. It is the LACK of a belief. Accusing atheists of resorting to science to defend their atheism is nonsensical. There is nothing to defend, no position being asserted. Religious people say `X exists'. I say 'show me' and they can't. Until they can, belief in any of these entities is irrational and unjustified.
If I tell you a purple dog exists and you don't believe me, is it up to you to prove to me that not a single purple dog exists in the entire universe? Or is it up to me to show you a purple dog? What about bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and werewolves, is it up to non believers in these things to show their non existence? What about the gods of other religions, can you prove beyond all doubt they don't exist? Should you believe in Allah and Vishnu and Shiva etc. until you can prove their non existence beyond all doubt? Or would you expect the believer wanting to convince you to provide their evidence?The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person saying an entity exists.
Actually what you`re describing is being agnostic.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements.
Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
That still does not explain your "just a theory" argument. In science there are only facts and theories. And they are different beasts. Theories are models of the world and facts are observations. Theory is as far as you can get in the scientific method.
And just to point out the Newtionian -> relativistic switch was not some total rearrangement. It was just pretty slight (although very important) change in terms of predictions to the Newtonian physics. In well established sciences new theories that replace old ones tend not to be revolutions but evolutions. So even if current theory of evolution was shown to be insufficient, new theory would keep the core of it anyway.
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
I`m intrigued. Who is this leader of atheism? I have never been approached by anyone asking me to fight for atheism. What would we fight for again? And how does institutionalization mean that something is a belief? Whether something is organized or not, the evidence does not change.
A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
Actually it's impossible to be sure that 'everything can be approached by science'. Science only deals in the observable, and since it is conceivably possible that something exists which can't be observed you can never make the statement 'everything can be approached by science.
I am quite interested to know what it means for a thing to exist (for me of course) without me being capable of interacting with it at least in principle. And if I can interact with it it is subject to scientific enquiry. So is it really conceivable for things to exist which can't be observed ? Does that statement even have any real meaning ?
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
A real atheist doesnt give a shit about this stuff, they just mind their own buisness and dont belivie in a god, not trying to impose their belifes on others like certien other people.
Why is it that these arguments always resort to claiming that atheism and non-religiousness is, itself, a religion?
Yes, there are some people out there who just downright claim that God, or other being don't exist, and that science has, or will eventually, give us the answer to everything. That's nothing more than a belief system in itself, because they have no proof to backup those claims.
But, I think the majority are intellectually honest enough with themselves to realize that they're merely skeptical. That doesn't mean they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that belief is wrong. It just means since there are infinite possibilities we do not yet know (read: Flying Spaghetti Monster), people have a tendency to force their ideas on other people, and people exploit other people for personal gain on a regular basis, that following a belief system because 'someone' (e.g. your parents) and 'something' (e.g. a multi-millenium old book) told you so, leaves an awful lot of doubt in the mind.
This is what critical thinking does for you. It frees your mind away from the prejudices and conclusions you built when you were younger, when you were HIGHLY susceptible to what your elders and peers told you to do, and be able to discover much more out there in the world, instead of rejecting it outright.
What I'll never understand is people's propensity to judge the many, based on a handful of idiots. Even on internet forums where you'd think people would have experience with such things. Haven't we all learned, yet, that the stupidest people are often the loudest?
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
On August 02 2011 00:08 ZeGzoR wrote: A real atheist doesnt give a shit about this stuff, they just mind their own buisness and dont belivie in a god, not trying to impose their belifes on others like certien other people.
Nope. I don't like stupidity, and I speak out against it. I don't see how that keeps me from being a "real" atheist.
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote: I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong.Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't.....You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote: Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."?
On August 01 2011 20:04 Traeon wrote: Mecker I hope you realize that you are doing the exact same thing as the person you're attacking. To help you realize it, let me play devil's advocate to show you:
The only reason atheism seems like a religion is because there are a lot of religious people.
Completely subjective statement and easily ridiculed by something such as "Show me the evidence for this".
Why are you paraphrasing? The paragraph gives a good example of a non-belief that noone cares about. The only evident reason anyone cares about atheists is because there are a lot of theists. If you have a reasonable argument against this statement, I'm all ears.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim?
Another opinion. You ask for facts to back up his claim, how about you present some facts to back up yours.
He was the one who made a claim. The only reason I posted my opinion on the matter was because he so dismissively claimed the exact opposite of my belief without any solid argument to back it up. If we were to have a discussion on the topic he would have to make his point through argument and so would I. Evidently, he didn't care to back up his claim with any argument whatsoever and that's just childish and certainly isn't well suited for a discussion forum.
And so on and so forth. I think everybody gets the drift by now. What a thread about critical thinking and skepticism really needs is a good discussion, not a disgusting argumentative style that consists of picking posts apart and not trying to understand what the other person is actually saying.
That's exactly what I am advocating. People posting claims without any argument leaves no room for any discussion.
On August 02 2011 01:00 Mecker wrote: That's exactly what I am advocating. People posting claims without any argument leaves no room for any discussion.
That is exactly what you did though, and I tried (fruitlessly) to make you realize it with the post you just replied to.
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote: Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."?
I think it's one of those ways that allows a lot of people to be able to cope with their own mortality. So long as there's a reason or an explanation for everything, life and death isn't so terrifying. One must overcome a big psychological hurdle to break away from those presupposed conclusions to begin imagining a world where infinite possibilities exist, until it's been discovered, because it's a pretty scary thought to think that you're just here to pump out babies and then you're worm food.
For instance, I'm pretty much convinced that my fiancee believes in ghosts and the paranormal because she's had to deal with a lot of people dying in her life, and it makes her feel comfortable to believe that their lives still have a purpose, or a role to play in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't ever be such a dick as to try and convince her otherwise as some people on both sides of the reason vs religion debate are prone to do. That's her belief, so who the hell am I to try and convert her?
Not knowing the answers is pretty scary, but then you start to realize that just because it hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An afterlife etc. can still exist, but maybe it's not given to us by following what's written in 2-8,000 year-old books. Maybe certain holy texts were in fact written by humans, who are fallible, and who got a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe one has it right. Maybe a different one has it right. Maybe everyone's wrong. There's so many choices, how does one decide which one has it down to the dotted i's and crossed t's? Thus one is lead down the path of reason and skepticism. Show me proof and I'll accept your view. Until then, don't try and shove it down my throat and I'll extend to you the same courtesy.
Some religious doctrine would have you believe that thinking in such ways is heretical and that it only produces an amoral, wandering, lost soul. I don't feel amoral, nor do I feel lost. I actually feel rather comfortable in living my life under the 'Don't be a dick' credo, and just downright excited to imagine how our understanding of the world will look as I get older.
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?.
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?.
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
You can't just play around with the definitions of words so haphazardly. What are you trying to say, that religion is just a societal structure? Then sure, it is. It's obvious that it was designed to be organized the way it is now. But if you're trying to equate atheism with any religion, then you're wrong. Atheism requires you to report to no one but yourself. You don't pay tithings to Richard Dawkins just because you don't have a belief in God. It's not the same thing at all.
People "fight" for atheism because they see the detrimental effect that religion has on society as a whole, and how much better off we would be if the world was absent from the influence of it. That doesn't put it on the same scale as religion, because they're not aiming for indoctrination, they're aiming for the elimination of retardation. Progress, in the atheist mind, is being held back by religion.
Also, there's nothing wrong with organization or structure. Your distaste should be redirected towards deception and the abuse of power, not the idea of organization in general.
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?.
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
On August 02 2011 02:40 xM(Z wrote: there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
I think you're spot on. Any thoughts based on rigid pre-defined systems instead of observation and experience is problematic.
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?.
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
And you actually used the word you should be using. Ideology is the word you are looking for, not religion. Communism and anarchism are not religions, they are ideologies. Religions are also ideologies.
Organized atheism does not mean that you accept it as a dogma, just that atheists would have organizational structures to help them achieve their goals whatever they might be. Same as other groups like political parties, NRA, ecological groups,... Yet those groups are not religions (and often not even ideologies).
EDIT: To answer your question about difference. Religions have by definition some kind of belief in supernatural, on the other hand atheism, communism, anarchism, capitalism,... do not.
On August 02 2011 01:00 Mecker wrote: That's exactly what I am advocating. People posting claims without any argument leaves no room for any discussion.
That is exactly what you did though, and I tried (fruitlessly) to make you realize it with the post you just replied to.
I rest my case.
Please read more carefully next time, I quote myself:
He was the one who made a claim. The only reason I posted my opinion on the matter was because he so dismissively claimed the exact opposite of my belief without any solid argument to back it up. If we were to have a discussion on the topic he would have to make his point through argument and so would I. Evidently, he didn't care to back up his claim with any argument whatsoever and that's just childish and certainly isn't well suited for a discussion forum
Here I explained why I responded that way. If he is the one that makes the first claim without any argument, I have every right to ask for evidence/arguments without any myself. It's sometimes hard to argue against someone when you have no clue about why they hold an opinion-
He: "ALL PEOPLE ARE EVIL!" Me: "I don't think so, do you have proof?"
On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote: atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it. prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion. it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!.
Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one.
And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?.
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
As a skeptic you have to rely on others, through peer review and other methods. There is no way for one person to be self reliant in testing everything. That is why one needs structure and organization.
What annoys me is that people never seem to understand the fundamental difference between critical thinking and religion: One is based on logic, and can be tested over and over again. It is flexible to change, since the evidence is what matters. The other is based on text, on thought, and on belief in that lack of evidence means you get to decide what is.
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements.
Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
That still does not explain your "just a theory" argument. In science there are only facts and theories. And they are different beasts. Theories are models of the world and facts are observations. Theory is as far as you can get in the scientific method.
And just to point out the Newtionian -> relativistic switch was not some total rearrangement. It was just pretty slight (although very important) change in terms of predictions to the Newtonian physics. In well established sciences new theories that replace old ones tend not to be revolutions but evolutions. So even if current theory of evolution was shown to be insufficient, new theory would keep the core of it anyway.
And evolution is also a fact. It was observed.
Wasn't arguing against evolution was just saying it's not a 100% prooven truth, it IS a theory it HAS observations to back it up that makes it a good a theory.
Ofcourse a new theory of evolution would keep the core and work on it. The entire point of the post was that science is an ongoing process, we don't even know everything about the things we do know. It's important to keep track of the limitations of science at any current time, too often it's the people who don't even understand it very well that think we know it all.
ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?. - dont generalize anything. present your thoughts in a critical manner directly related to the issue. (religion?, is not specific) - dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that) - nope, atheism doesnt need organization, structure nor peer reviewing. science might but youre not supposed to be the defenders of science.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
Belief and acceptance are two very different entities. Atheism is my belief system, however, I am far more strict about what I accept.
First, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge of any physical observation. Take this from me, a physicist (but don't completely accept it). We can make logical conclusions - if A then B. But these conclusions are pure math, and a mathematical identity has nothing to do with the physical world, it's just a language tool. But any idea of the world must be rooted from an axiom. I can use a mathematical argument to say that "If A then B", which means that I know 100% that B must be true if A is, but I simply used a mathematical identity there. A is the axiom, and I can not be entirely sure if it's true. Therefore I cannot be entirely sure if B is true. That being said, any concept of our physical world is a theory. Evolution, Gravity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all theories, and some have a stronger basis than others. If the evidence towards a theory is so compelling, and is the best candidate to explain phenomena by a long shot, it is an "accepted theory". It may, however still be wrong! Newton's "action at a distance" theory to explain gravity was the accepted model, but it turned out to be wrong (but still valid for calculations in certain limits).
Now that I got that out of the way, let me elaborate on my first sentence ("Belief and acceptance blah blah...") Belief is a personal choice, and one should always acknowledge that its foundation is quite weak. Acceptance should be exclusively reserved for "accepted theories", which I defined in the previous paragraph. Go to a very headstrong close-minded atheist, or a fanatic catholic, or any other analogous example, and they will claim that they "accept" their stance on theism, but keep in mind that they're not very strong representatives of that belief. One should always keep in mind the distinction between belief and acceptance.
The only reason I'm an atheist (the only "reason" one could ever adopt atheism) is that most arguments towards theism are fallacies of logic. Sure, many of them are compelling, and attractive, but they abandon critical thinking in their execution. Also, they are meant to defend an entity whose existence is beyond what can be measured in principle. Thus, I simply default to the simplest explanation, given all the credible evidence that actually does contribute towards the stance of theism vs atheism (which is none for either side).
Thus, I cannot make any arguments defending atheism. I can only debunk arguments for theism, and one might argue that those are the former type of arguments, but I'm simply saying there is no spontaneously inspired argument thereof. I can, however, spend months trying to steer you towards the things I accept (relativity, quantum field theory, etc...)
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?.
Depends on how you define atheism. Very few atheists actually straight out say "The existence of a god is impossible.", meaning most of us are agnostic atheists. Though when we say that, uneducated people seem to believe that we're uncertain and eventually will pick something else - which is a grave misinterpretation of the meaning agnostic atheist. Being agnostic atheist sort of by definition means that you're skeptic of atheism. So your statement is actually false since we (most atheists) don't actually adhere to the skewed view of atheism that you have.
- second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?.
Atheism is a non-belief. No atheist is following anyone's thoughts.
"We're not selling anything, we're just not buying what you're selling."
those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
I'll just point out again that atheism is not a belief, but a non-belief.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
From a scientific viewpoint atheism would be the "correct" standpoint, or the "most justified" standpoint. This would change in the future if someone produced proof that a deity exists. How could you possibly claim that the M.O. of atheism and religion is the same? This is utterly ignorant and just indicates that you have no clue what atheism is.
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?.
In my opinion we should scrutinize all religions. It is understandable though that most atheists in the western world are mostly critical towards Christianity since Christianity is the most wide-spread religion in the west. By the way, it isn't bullying. it's fair treatment. A religion shouldn't be given a free pass just because a lot of people are religious.
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
can still refute individual gods/religions, which is the same thing as saying 'any' god doesn't exist for those who believe in said god/religion.. they make no such distinction
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?. - dont generalize anything. present your thoughts in a critical manner directly related to the issue. (religion?, is not specific) - dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that) - nope, atheism doesnt need organization, structure nor peer reviewing. science might but youre not supposed to be the defenders of science.
I do not think discussing this with you will lead to anything. You keep mixing up atheism and critical thinking, you generalize alot about what atheists are, and you project alot of false beliefs and ideas upon all who label themselves skeptic or atheist. It seems to me like you harbour some kind of resentment to what you call atheists.
And religion is not too unspecific for discussing this. No religion has any evidence going for their beliefs, why spend energy on separating them. They are all in the same boat.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
There is this hipster attitude nowadays of agnosticism being some cool third option of the "do you believe in a god?" question. The fact is atheism means without a god (and by extention - has no belief system), theism means with a god (so is a believer), and agnosticism means I don't know. How can you answer the question of do you believe in a god with I don't know? Do you not know the contents of your own mind? Belief isn't fact, its faith. Two very different beasts. Non belief is the rational default to anything outlandish until proof is shown. You can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, which shows it isnt a third option. If you believe in a god you are a theist. If you believe in some god, somewhere but you don't think religions have a proper view on him/her, you are an agnostic theist.If you think god is everywhere and not a personal god, you are a deist. If you are anything else, you are an atheist.
Atheists are pretty commonly agnostic (because the default answer of science to any unknown question is "I don't know" with an addition of "we're working on it") in any case, because if a god was proven through logical or scientific means we would happily go along with it (we wouldn't do what the modern faithful do, and endlessly make excuses so that our non belief could survive ). But there is really an extreme lack of evidence for any current or historical god existing (of which there have been over 3700 religions), something the faithful literally can't understand because to them its "obvious" - but they don't realise that "obviousness" is the result of many years of conditioning into accepting the silly as truth, and fact and reason as silly when it comes to god.
The reason some may say "there is no god" is not an article of faith, its the same as saying there are no leprechauns - there is no evidence to suggest they exist, logically or empirically and while we can't search the entire universe for their existence, it's reasonable to say they don't exist. When that line of reasoning is applied to a god who scripture says takes a VERY active role in our lives, and loves us and answers prayers and all that, it is very easy to say that there's nothing to show for that and it's clearly false because the vast majority of the "evidence" (and I use that term very loosely here) is in a thousands of years old book written from the oral traditions of a particularly uneducated desert area of the world.
In fact my point above has been conceded by many modern believers to such an extent that god has become more and more ethereal and mysterious, if you speak a believer with a good education you will notice they've turned the distorting of reason into an art form in order to match what they've learned with their faith, and in fact it can be very hard to pin down what exactly it is that they believe. Their god is vastly different to the ever present and intervening god of the bible, that's for sure. And in previous points of history, their views of god would be branded heretical and would earn them a place in front of an inquisitor.
But that's not so surprising - the 19 men who flew planes into the twin towers and pentagon all had college educations. They rationalised their faith with their education too...
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
On August 02 2011 21:22 sVnteen wrote: cool stuff but i dont really see why were in nihilism
Only partially. Nihilism is rejecting all religion, all morals, and saying life is meaningless. I say far from it. Reject religion sure, but morality is one of the best things humans have invented so why lump it in with one of the worst?
Life being meaningless, well, it depends what meaning you're trying to assign. If you're asking if we're here for a purpose - there's no reason to think that. If you're asking if life is worth living, well definitely. So much enjoyment can be had from life, and seeing our progression as a species is all totally engrossing. Let your senses feast while treating your fellow man how you want to be treated (which is not a philosophy "jesus" invented - confucious spoke about it hundreds of years previously and he didn't even invent it)
The irony about religious people saying atheists consider life meaningless is extreme - religious people believe that THIS life, our one life, only has worth because it ends and we have another life afterwards, and this life is merely a test to get to the next one. Can you not see the silliness in that? I think that degrades the hell out of our lives, it makes it frivolous, trivial, when really its all we've got.
That is why you get religious suicide bombers. Thats why you see fundamentalists saying "we love death more than you love life".
Life may not have meaning, in the religious sense, but it sure as hell has worth.
Edit@ Whitedog - Agnosticism is "I don't know". You can attribute that to anything, not just metaphysical questions. So ghosts, spirits, magic, summonings etc would fall into that category? What if the teapot in an ellipse orbit was a mystical one and couldn't be seen with the naked eye, couldn't be detected with the best telescope, nor the best scientific equipment? Or an ethereal ice cream factory on jupiter, where they make sundae's for ghosts? You surely can see the fallacy of that point of view.
And, even going along with your version, agnostics (or more precisely in your case, agnostic theists) seem to assume the metaphysical exists while all we have and all we know of as true, is physical. Agnostics then are as guilty of a belief system as much as theists are, especially when you say "god is a metaphysical being" - where does that information even come from? The bible shows a highly interactive/interfering god/dictator. If "he" actually still were like that, that would be proof enough no?
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Gnosticism and agnosticism are both positions with regard to knowlegde, not belief. It is perfectly possible to say: "I don't know whether the Christian God exists, but I believe in him because XYZ" making this person an agnostic theist. Many theists claim to "know" God exists however, for instance on the basis of their personal relationship with him and are thus "gnostic theists" (not to be confused with the religious sect). With atheism things become a bit more complicated since it is usually not clear to which god concept people are referring. An atheist might claim to know that a particular god does not exist (maybe because of a logical contradiction), so he would be a "gnostic atheist" with respect to this particular god. I have yet to meet an atheist who claimed to know with certainty that no god or gods would exist, however. So, in this general sense I would say that most atheists are agnostics.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
It sounds as if you're concept of scepticism is one in which a.) you are never allowed to develop a point of view and stand by it, since you 'stop' being sceptic the moment you reach a conclusion and b.) are never allowed to follow the thoughts of someone else but rather have to rely only on your own conclusions.
The fallacy of point a is that scepticism is not so much about having the same amount of scepticism towards everything and thereby constantly struggeling to reach any conclusive point at all, but rather the mindset you use to approach problems, namely the willingness to scrutinize your point of view when presented with new/other approaches/ideas/solutions/facts. Imho scepticism doesn't mean you are not allowed to be confident into a certain point of view, but rather that you are aware of why you think that way and willing to be critical about that way if faced with new information. In the case of the "certainty of atheism" this means that lots of people have by sceptical thinking (at least I hope you're atheist because you thought long and hard and not because your friends are ;D) come to the conclusion that he existence of a general kind of deity is - at least taking acount those informations available to us - rather unlikely, and the existence of any one of the deitys worshipped by the big religions of today downright silly. And as long as they reached that point through critical thinking they should very well be aware that they can't be sure it's the truth, but there's nothing wrong or even hyprocritical/paradox in defending their point of view and standing to it, as long as they're open to debate. The conclusion itself is even rather unimportant if you want to labeln someone as 'sceptic' or not, it's rather the way they came to this conclusion - critical thinking isn't defined by the final point of view you reach but rather by the way you reach (and sustain) it.
Your point B is pretty much were madness lies. It's one of the biggest inventions of humanity that we're able to transport knowledge/informations/idead through time by the means of media. It's downright not smart to not follow great thinkers to challenge you're views, learn something new, and agree or disagree with them. You're position implies that a 'sceptic' was never allowed to agree with anything anyone else has ever thought or said (because it wouldn't be their own thought anymore and thereby not 'sceptic') - but that basically forbids a sceptic to say or think anything at all... because most thougts you think have been thought, written down, debated, criticized, etc. and it can only be fruitful if you informe yourself about what other people had to say regarding the same topic. And if you agree with them or even cite them because they were able to express their thoughts a lot better then you are.. so what?
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
Belief and acceptance are two very different entities. Atheism is my belief system, however, I am far more strict about what I accept.
First, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge of any physical observation. Take this from me, a physicist (but don't completely accept it). We can make logical conclusions - if A then B. But these conclusions are pure math, and a mathematical identity has nothing to do with the physical world, it's just a language tool. But any idea of the world must be rooted from an axiom. I can use a mathematical argument to say that "If A then B", which means that I know 100% that B must be true if A is, but I simply used a mathematical identity there. A is the axiom, and I can not be entirely sure if it's true. Therefore I cannot be entirely sure if B is true. That being said, any concept of our physical world is a theory. Evolution, Gravity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all theories, and some have a stronger basis than others. If the evidence towards a theory is so compelling, and is the best candidate to explain phenomena by a long shot, it is an "accepted theory". It may, however still be wrong! Newton's "action at a distance" theory to explain gravity was the accepted model, but it turned out to be wrong (but still valid for calculations in certain limits).
Now that I got that out of the way, let me elaborate on my first sentence ("Belief and acceptance blah blah...") Belief is a personal choice, and one should always acknowledge that its foundation is quite weak. Acceptance should be exclusively reserved for "accepted theories", which I defined in the previous paragraph. Go to a very headstrong close-minded atheist, or a fanatic catholic, or any other analogous example, and they will claim that they "accept" their stance on theism, but keep in mind that they're not very strong representatives of that belief. One should always keep in mind the distinction between belief and acceptance.
The only reason I'm an atheist (the only "reason" one could ever adopt atheism) is that most arguments towards theism are fallacies of logic. Sure, many of them are compelling, and attractive, but they abandon critical thinking in their execution. Also, they are meant to defend an entity whose existence is beyond what can be measured in principle. Thus, I simply default to the simplest explanation, given all the credible evidence that actually does contribute towards the stance of theism vs atheism (which is none for either side).
Thus, I cannot make any arguments defending atheism. I can only debunk arguments for theism, and one might argue that those are the former type of arguments, but I'm simply saying there is no spontaneously inspired argument thereof. I can, however, spend months trying to steer you towards the things I accept (relativity, quantum field theory, etc...)
your 'belief <-> acceptance' theory assumes total free will (with no social/monetary constrains) and also relies on the subjects ability to procces the information (your information). that basically means one can not be forced in to atheism since he is in some way, impaired. (now, atheists, dont get your panties in a bunch because thats what religious people can say about you). since he can not (doesnt have the ability) to understand you what will you have him do: blindly believe (in) you just because youre a higher 'logical' beeing? (that means you are requiring faith from him, while being an atheist, while fighting against a belief system that requires faith). you can not make arguments about defending atheism but you can can make arguments about what atheism wants to achieve (a world free of faith) and about what is expected of the future atheist wannabeez. as an atheist, you should present your proof, your idea, then gtfo. those who can will follow but those who cant shall not be judged by you. not even if they believe in the spaghetti monster. you can say i am trying to redefine atheism but im merely pointing out it has became mainstream-ized and in a bad way.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?.
Depends on how you define atheism. Very few atheists actually straight out say "The existence of a god is impossible.", meaning most of us are agnostic atheists. Though when we say that, uneducated people seem to believe that we're uncertain and eventually will pick something else - which is a grave misinterpretation of the meaning agnostic atheist. Being agnostic atheist sort of by definition means that you're skeptic of atheism. So your statement is actually false since we (most atheists) don't actually adhere to the skewed view of atheism that you have.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
From a scientific viewpoint atheism would be the "correct" standpoint, or the "most justified" standpoint. This would change in the future if someone produced proof that a deity exists. How could you possibly claim that the M.O. of atheism and religion is the same? This is utterly ignorant and just indicates that you have no clue what atheism is.
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?.
In my opinion we should scrutinize all religions. It is understandable though that most atheists in the western world are mostly critical towards Christianity since Christianity is the most wide-spread religion in the west. By the way, it isn't bullying. it's fair treatment. A religion shouldn't be given a free pass just because a lot of people are religious.
no offence but you seem like a tool. saying "No atheist is following anyone's thoughts" then right after, post a video depicting someone elses thoughts then expect people to believe/follow them is ... ? (i have no words). are atheist thoughts not 'someone elses thoughts'?. you said "Atheism is a non-belief". in your religious context belief=faith and faith=a god, any kind of god. now, if all people will become godless, faithless and beliefless your statement will change to "Atheism is a non-" from there it can go two ways: 1) replace "belief" with anything worth non-fighting against (from your perspective) just to keep atheism alive (you know, doing the right thing science wise) 2) since atheism serverd its purpose it should dissapear. I know that logically, having serverd its purpose, atheism should dissapear but can you prove to me that the first case wont happen?. you know, without relying in your beliefs?. anyway, if atheism will perpetuate the 'non-xxx' stance pass god/gods it will become a thing (and from my perspective, a religious thing. in other words, im not-buying what youre not-selling). it has the same M.O. because it expects things from people while it should not.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?. - dont generalize anything. present your thoughts in a critical manner directly related to the issue. (religion?, is not specific) - dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that) - nope, atheism doesnt need organization, structure nor peer reviewing. science might but youre not supposed to be the defenders of science.
I do not think discussing this with you will lead to anything. You keep mixing up atheism and critical thinking, you generalize alot about what atheists are, and you project alot of false beliefs and ideas upon all who label themselves skeptic or atheist. It seems to me like you harbour some kind of resentment to what you call atheists.
And religion is not too unspecific for discussing this. No religion has any evidence going for their beliefs, why spend energy on separating them. They are all in the same boat.
im only criticizing mainstream-ized atheism for what it tries to achieve. i did not create 276343252 types of atheism: theoretical atheism, practical atheism, positive atheism, atheist existentialism, extreme atheism and so on and so forth. i only chose to ignore some/most of atheism nuances because were to subjective or were deviating from its original intent. atheism was suppose to fight the idea of god not fight the people who believe in one.
R. Dawkin is a tool for making atheists fight people instead of people ideas. Have you people not go out in the past years?. Atheists physically and psychologically hurt religious people. the fuck is that?. Having said that, I am an atheist. I do not believe that a god exists or will ever exist but i will never mock/kick be rude to those who believe in one.
On August 02 2011 23:14 xM(Z wrote: R. Dawkin is a tool for making atheists fight people instead of people ideas. Have you people not go out in the past years?. Atheists physically and psychologically hurt religious people. the fuck is that?. Having said that, I am an atheist. I do not believe that a god exists or will ever exist but i will never mock/kick be rude to those who believe in one.
What ? How many atheists are hurting physically religious people because of that difference ? When you compare it to how many christians hurt physically atheists it is quite a difference. The violence used is mainly on the side of christians.
Most of the psychological hurt suffered by christians is pretty hypocritical, because they suffer from things that others just take as they come, because they are used to the situation that religion cannot be mocked. I never saw someone actually targetting any specific person and psychologically hurting him because he was christian and again those instances would be small compared to the other way around.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
However, we should of course try to have a peaceful and polite discussion, (but dear god please avoid becoming a martyr just because someone criticizes a belief you have ...)
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote: Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure.
Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist.
Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote: Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure.
Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist.
Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
Fairies and ghosts not really as they have similar magical abilities as god as far as detection goes.
And how do you know god's properties are beyond our abilities to measure. First you have to pick one and then you have to reasonably define his abilities and then we can discuss any measuring.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
I will agree with you here that a 'strong' atheist is just as bad as a theist. Your second point is completely bullshit however. How is following someones elses thoughts, after you've determined they are correct, a bad thing?
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
Bullcrap, 'the fact' that religion is irrational follows from critical thinking. It is not the base for critical thinking or atheism.
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
Err what? Atheism isn't an organization. An atheist is simply a person considering the possibility of a god very small. There are no leaders, no structure, no "atheist meetings in which we all sing and dance and praise the nonexistence of gods".
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?.
No one is bullying Christianity. You're free to believe whatever you want, up till the point where your belief starts to interfere with the lives of others.
- dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that)
We are providing the arguments that follow from critical thinking and skepticism to people, and if they bring counterarguments, we counter those. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here...? Are you saying discussing is bad?
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote: Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure.
Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist.
Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
And yet according to most religious tradition god is supposed to be just as perceptible as mythologies would have you believe trolls and fairies are, if not more so. This unknowable god concept is almost entirely modern (or at least its popularity is modern), because science has pushed the boundaries of what we know so much, and the concept of an unknowable god is in recognition to the fact that we have found zero evidence of his existence.
God used to be the cause of the weather, famines, diseases, good health, healthy children, the survival of the tribe, creator of creatures as they are, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. He lived in heaven which was in the clouds, and the devil lived in hell which was under the earth. Because we now have answers to all those things (and have explored so much as well) we now know god is in none of those places, so apologetic theists basically take a make-it-up-as-you-go approach, to justify their beliefs.
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote: Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure.
Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist.
Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
And yet according to most religious tradition god is supposed to be just as perceptible as mythologies would have you believe trolls and fairies are, if not more so. This unknowable god concept is almost entirely modern (or at least its popularity is modern), because science has pushed the boundaries of what we know so much, and the concept of an unknowable god is in recognition to the fact that we have found zero evidence of his existence.
God used to be the cause of the weather, famines, diseases, good health, healthy children, the survival of the tribe, creator of creatures as they are, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. He lived in heaven which was in the clouds, and the devil lived in hell which was under the earth. Because we now have answers to all those things (and have explored so much as well) we now know god is in none of those places, so apologetic theists basically take a make-it-up-as-you-go approach, to justify their beliefs.
God of the gaps. Science fills in a hole in our understanding and we simply move God to another gap. I like to think of religion as the science and guidelines for your life of the past. Religion is just cultural heritage.
Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. There certainly are religous assholes who beat others over the head with their beliefs, but there are others that view the concept of a creator as a logically sound argument. The problem with dialogue between atheists and theists is both a result of religous people being assholes about their beliefs, but also atheists wholeheartedly rejecting even the possibilty of a creator. A true critical thinker who does not have faith in the possibility of a creator will be an agnostic, not an atheist, since an agnostic is someone that at least acknowledges their inability to know for certain the truth of a matter. Atheists are just the opposite side of the Theist coin and therefore their dismissal of theistic beliefs without proper debate makes them as much of an asshole as the theists they so loathe when they make their claim that existence sprang from...nothing I suppose.
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote: Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. There certainly are religous assholes who beat others over the head with their beliefs, but there are others that view the concept of a creator as a logically sound argument. The problem with dialogue between atheists and theists is both a result of religous people being assholes about their beliefs, but also atheists wholeheartedly rejecting even the possibilty of a creator. A true critical thinker who does not have faith in the possibility of a creator will be an agnostic, not an atheist, since an agnostic is someone that at least acknowledges their inability to know for certain the truth of a matter. Atheists are just the opposite side of the Theist coin and therefore their dismissal of theistic beliefs without proper debate makes them as much of an asshole as the theists they so loathe when they make their claim that existence sprang from...nothing I suppose.
Calling yourself an atheist doesn't mean you resort to illogical thinking. Atheist simply means that you're not a theist.
Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
Thus you can be an atheist and still acknowledge the fact that the existence of a god is possible.
The reason we can't use the word agnostic is because it is a common belief among uneducated people that agnostic somehow means that you just haven't "chosen" yet. They don't really understand the concept of science and uncertainty. On numerous occasions people have completely misinterpreted me when I've said that I'm agnostic/agnostic atheist. Claiming that I'm an atheist is much closer to the truth of my opinion than what they think agnostic is.
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote: Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith.
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith.
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote: Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith.
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith.
I humbly disagree. While I'm a die-hard atheist, I find it understandable that people have faith in unreasonable things. You need to understand that every human being is moved by emotions, we all have it. It's emotions that convince you to get out of bed everyday and live your life. We need emotions to live. And we all react differently to different emotions. Fear of death is a very powerful emotion. And some people can only stand living and wake up everyday if they believe death isn't as scary as it really is. It's understandable.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect people because of their emotions. They can still contribute to humanity and help shape the world a better place. Newton was religious, even Galileu, who was persecuted by the church, was religious. I love both of those guys, they gave important contributions to science. I can respect that even as great scientists, they were human beings who can be afraid of the dark.
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote: Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith.
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith.
I humbly disagree. While I'm a die-hard atheist, I find it understandable that people have faith in unreasonable things. You need to understand that every human being is moved by emotions, we all have it. It's emotions that convince you to get out of bed everyday and live your life. We need emotions to live. And we all react differently to different emotions. Fear of death is a very powerful emotion. And some people can only stand living and wake up everyday if they believe death isn't as scary as it really is. It's understandable.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect people because of their emotions. They can still contribute to humanity and help shape the world a better place. Newton was religious, even Galileu, who was persecuted by the church, was religious. I love both of those guys, they gave important contributions to science. I can respect that even as great scientists, they were human beings who can be afraid of the dark.
Well, it's a video in support of critical thinking, and faith is indeed at odds with critical thinking. This isn't really a problem until people start acting like their faith is rational and want to use it to shape things like public policy and morality. Then we have problems.
Wanting to believe in Heaven isn't a problem; it's just irrational. Wanting to believe in Heaven and therefore wanting to persecute people with different beliefs and trash the environment and force women to carry pregnancies and strap bombs to yourself is a problem.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote: Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith. There certainly are religous assholes who beat others over the head with their beliefs, but there are others that view the concept of a creator as a logically sound argument. The problem with dialogue between atheists and theists is both a result of religous people being assholes about their beliefs, but also atheists wholeheartedly rejecting even the possibilty of a creator. A true critical thinker who does not have faith in the possibility of a creator will be an agnostic, not an atheist, since an agnostic is someone that at least acknowledges their inability to know for certain the truth of a matter. Atheists are just the opposite side of the Theist coin and therefore their dismissal of theistic beliefs without proper debate makes them as much of an asshole as the theists they so loathe when they make their claim that existence sprang from...nothing I suppose.
There are many ideas that are logically sound but still unreasonable. I believe most religious people think they are being ridiculed when an atheist talks about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or even the Invisible Elf in the backyard. And while that might often be the case there's also a more pragmatic point. Exactly that you can dismiss ideas even if you have no way to rule them out logically.
The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is mostly semantics. Some say atheism means there definitely is no god, some say it means "I see no reason to believe that there is a god". Almost all people who call themselves atheists actually take the second position. If you think "that's not atheism" fine, it just means you are speaking a slightly different language. You can always ask for clarification and refer to their beliefs directly instead of ambiguous labels.
The final point is the same as the first one. There are ideas that are possible but so unlikely that they deserve almost no attention. I mean, winning the jackpot on the lottery 50 times in a row is possible. Not only is it impossible to rule out, you can actually assign a specific probability to it.
The problem with logically proving that God could exist is exactly this. Yes, he could. But the real question is how likely is it? And you can't do that without taking an honest look at where our ideas of God come from, how the claims of supposed holy books check out, etc.
"Well, it's possible and I have faith, so that's good enough for me." is not the attitude of a critical thinker. In it's own way it's worse than claiming that something is impossible when it's actually just very, very improbable.
On August 03 2011 01:20 BaronVonHydra wrote: Good videos. The strength of the videos is in their call for critical thinking, but their weakness comes from their acrimony towards people who have faith.
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. A belief in something without proof shouldn't be respected. Of course, you can still respect the people who have faith.
I humbly disagree. While I'm a die-hard atheist, I find it understandable that people have faith in unreasonable things. You need to understand that every human being is moved by emotions, we all have it. It's emotions that convince you to get out of bed everyday and live your life. We need emotions to live. And we all react differently to different emotions. Fear of death is a very powerful emotion. And some people can only stand living and wake up everyday if they believe death isn't as scary as it really is. It's understandable.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect people because of their emotions. They can still contribute to humanity and help shape the world a better place. Newton was religious, even Galileu, who was persecuted by the church, was religious. I love both of those guys, they gave important contributions to science. I can respect that even as great scientists, they were human beings who can be afraid of the dark.
Well, it's a video in support of critical thinking, and faith is indeed at odds with critical thinking. This isn't really a problem until people start acting like their faith is rational and want to use it to shape things like public policy and morality. Then we have problems.
Wanting to believe in Heaven isn't a problem; it's just irrational. Wanting to believe in Heaven and therefore wanting to persecute people with different beliefs and trash the environment and force women to carry pregnancies and strap bombs to yourself is a problem.
I agree, religion have it's use for people who need it emotionally, but that doesn't mean it's rational or reasonable. Religion and science can coexist, but for that you need to understand religion's limits, you cannot use it to explain the world. For that, religion is wrong, you should use science instead. Learn how to separate them.
"If religion has any point and purpose to it. It's not to serve as a science text-book." - Neil Tyson
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. " - Galileo Galilei - a man who was both very religious and made huge advancements in science.
I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote: I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
Do you truly believe that that's the appropriate level of abstraction to talk about specific religious claims or religious traditions?
Or that you even need it discuss concrete examples of how rationality breaks down?
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote: I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I get what you mean, but you should back it up before saying it.
The Pew study in the U.S for example disagrees with what you've said, in that atheists are ranked second highest only to jews in knowing about world religions and about the religion in their specific area of the world. Catholics are ranked the lowest, the other religions are in between. If you can show some evidence to the contrary, i'd be happy to see it.
It is an interesting point that has been raised time and time again, that if you are an atheist you likely know more about a persons religion than they do. Perhaps you've had the misfortune to meet some hipster atheists/agnostics or something, but I know far more about catholicism and christianity than anyone my age i've met. I've read more of the bible than them (usually they have gotten 100% of their faith from the priest preaching at the pulpit). I avoid debating with them though, because whenever they do bring up religion and discover my lack of faith (I NEVER bring it up as a rule, some of them have a habit of asking and im not about to lie) we get into an argument that they inevitably get very, very pissed off about as i've quoted passages of the bible at them which contradict their lovey-dovey vision of christianity, and the works of well known critical thinkers.
There is also the religious joke frequently passed around which has a great deal of truth to it - "If you want to become an atheist, read the bible".
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote: I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I`d be interested to hear what you think of as misinformed in this thread. Saying a and not b is kind of rude you know
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote: I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I'm a philosophy student and I therefore know everything about critical thinking! Here, let me generalize this entire thread/group of people and use it to put myself on a pedestal and not provide a single specific example! That will educate you all!
I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'.
Sorry, no, philosophy majors do not have a monopoly on thinking, lol. If you think that I haven't learned a lot about logic and reason over my years-long transition from religious to atheist and spending a lot of time hearing many arguments for and against it just because I don't know all of the names of the philosophers and the specific terms for the ideas, then you are simply wrong.
I suppose that's my main problem with most philosophy majors I've met in my experience. They aren't actually better philosophers than anyone else that I talk to; they just know all of the names and the terms so that they can sound pompous about it.
I don't have a problem with you suggesting that people read more, but please cut the incredibly condescending attitude.
On August 03 2011 05:00 Cytokinesis wrote: I'm a philosophy major working on my doctorate thesis and just found this thread. First of all I would like to address that yes critical thinking (aka philosophy) should be taught in schools. It's one of the most important things children can learn. You teach the kid to fish, not give him the fish. But second of all, and this is my most important point, I hate how there is this whole science vs religion meta thing going on IRL now. What annoys me is every few people from either side truly understand what is happening and the in's and out's. I have studied much religion and my doctoral thesis is actually on rationality, religion and the neuroscience and how they interact.
Saying that, this thread actually frustrates me too no end because it is incredibly ill-informed. Reminds me of talking to freshman. You know the guy who just took his first philosophy or logic course. or even worse, the guy who just read something inspiring on the internet. I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'. I'm only writing this paragraph because I can really tell by the style of writing in this thread that it seems many are like this. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! However! I do urge you to do more research especially on the side opposite of which you stand.
It really disheartens me to see such passionate arguments on both sides that are so ill-informed. the most shocking revelation over the past 5 years has been that a lot of the misinformation has been coming from the 'atheist' portion. The religious side has always had misinformation, but it is surprising to see fellow 'critical thinkers' so ignorant about the opposite side.
As far as faith goes, there is literally tons of work on it. Hume wrote some VERY good material on faith that is still relevant today.
I'm a philosophy student and I therefore know everything about critical thinking! Here, let me generalize this entire thread/group of people and use it to put myself on a pedestal and not provide a single specific example! That will educate you all!
I'm saying this because despite what armchair logicians think, it is a research based field you really can't just 'learn'.
Sorry, no, philosophy majors do not have a monopoly on thinking, lol. If you think that I haven't learned a lot about logic and reason over my years-long transition from religious to atheist and spending a lot of time hearing many arguments for and against it just because I don't know all of the names of the philosophers and the specific terms for the ideas, then you are simply wrong.
I suppose that's my main problem with most philosophy majors I've met in my experience. They aren't actually better philosophers than anyone else that I talk to; they just know all of the names and the terms so that they can sound pompous about it.
I don't have a problem with you suggesting that people read more, but please cut the incredibly condescending attitude.
Yeah, but I will had that there is no technics or anything to help you think (in the way heidegger define it at least). I like how people always defend their degree or any other kind of symbolic penis to point out that what they say is deeper or more intelligent : in fact it is just more refined, clearer and therefore easiest to defend.
Thinking is something that has nothing to do with all that : it's about you, your condition, your views on your life and what you are / your future / why you are here. You think when you force yourself to go deeper into the meaning of your life and your view on the society you live in : that's why so few people actually think, not because they are not educated to do so, but because they never take the time to walk down the road and ask themselves deep and simple question with the intend to really came up with their own answer. The rest is just reasonning, well in my point of view at least.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
Note but.
Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
Note but.
Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
Very well, even if we were to grant your interpretation of that definition, are you agnostic about the existence of transcendental metaphysical fairies? Adding that something is metaphysical changes nothing about the methods available to us for determining if things exist. If evidentiary support is not available, then belief in an entity is not justified.
You're probably an atheist too, you just don't want to admit it to yourself. If your answer to 'do you believe a God exists' is not yes, then you do not believe a god exists. 1+1=2 Of course agnostics say 'but I don't KNOW'. That doesn't matter, nobody KNOWS, the question is do you believe?
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive at all.
Also I suppose it`s not my place to say, and maybe a bit hypocritical on my part, but isn't this thread supposed to be about critical thinking and stuff? Surely the discussion I just joined in to could have its own thread? In fact i'm pretty sure it already has tons.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
Note but.
Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
Very well, even if we were to grant your interpretation of that definition, are you agnostic about the existence of transcendental metaphysical fairies? Adding that something is metaphysical changes nothing about the methods available to us for determining if things exist. If evidentiary support is not available, then belief in an entity is not justified.
You're probably an atheist too, you just don't want to admit it to yourself. If your answer to 'do you believe a God exists' is not yes, then you do not believe a god exists. 1+1=2 Of course agnostics say 'but I don't KNOW'. That doesn't matter, nobody KNOWS, the question is do you believe?
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive at all.
Also I suppose it`s not my place to say, and maybe a bit hypocritical on my part, but isn't this thread supposed to be about critical thinking and stuff? Surely the discussion I just joined in to could have its own thread? In fact i'm pretty sure it already has tons.
It's somewhat intertwined, especially since Qualiasoup is also big on this theme, so I don't think its out of context.
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote: Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."?
I think it's one of those ways that allows a lot of people to be able to cope with their own mortality. So long as there's a reason or an explanation for everything, life and death isn't so terrifying. One must overcome a big psychological hurdle to break away from those presupposed conclusions to begin imagining a world where infinite possibilities exist, until it's been discovered, because it's a pretty scary thought to think that you're just here to pump out babies and then you're worm food.
For instance, I'm pretty much convinced that my fiancee believes in ghosts and the paranormal because she's had to deal with a lot of people dying in her life, and it makes her feel comfortable to believe that their lives still have a purpose, or a role to play in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't ever be such a dick as to try and convince her otherwise as some people on both sides of the reason vs religion debate are prone to do. That's her belief, so who the hell am I to try and convert her?
Not knowing the answers is pretty scary, but then you start to realize that just because it hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An afterlife etc. can still exist, but maybe it's not given to us by following what's written in 2-8,000 year-old books. Maybe certain holy texts were in fact written by humans, who are fallible, and who got a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe one has it right. Maybe a different one has it right. Maybe everyone's wrong. There's so many choices, how does one decide which one has it down to the dotted i's and crossed t's? Thus one is lead down the path of reason and skepticism. Show me proof and I'll accept your view. Until then, don't try and shove it down my throat and I'll extend to you the same courtesy.
Some religious doctrine would have you believe that thinking in such ways is heretical and that it only produces an amoral, wandering, lost soul. I don't feel amoral, nor do I feel lost. I actually feel rather comfortable in living my life under the 'Don't be a dick' credo, and just downright excited to imagine how our understanding of the world will look as I get older.
You know what you call these people are? Not using their brain and don't use critical thinking, rational and reasoning. You're using the emotions excuse as a curtain for these kind of people but in reality your girlfriend is not using her brain to her full potential, I'm sorry to say but it's true. Believing in anything without evidence is ludicrous pure and simple.
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote: Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know?
What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."?
I think it's one of those ways that allows a lot of people to be able to cope with their own mortality. So long as there's a reason or an explanation for everything, life and death isn't so terrifying. One must overcome a big psychological hurdle to break away from those presupposed conclusions to begin imagining a world where infinite possibilities exist, until it's been discovered, because it's a pretty scary thought to think that you're just here to pump out babies and then you're worm food.
For instance, I'm pretty much convinced that my fiancee believes in ghosts and the paranormal because she's had to deal with a lot of people dying in her life, and it makes her feel comfortable to believe that their lives still have a purpose, or a role to play in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't ever be such a dick as to try and convince her otherwise as some people on both sides of the reason vs religion debate are prone to do. That's her belief, so who the hell am I to try and convert her?
Not knowing the answers is pretty scary, but then you start to realize that just because it hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An afterlife etc. can still exist, but maybe it's not given to us by following what's written in 2-8,000 year-old books. Maybe certain holy texts were in fact written by humans, who are fallible, and who got a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe one has it right. Maybe a different one has it right. Maybe everyone's wrong. There's so many choices, how does one decide which one has it down to the dotted i's and crossed t's? Thus one is lead down the path of reason and skepticism. Show me proof and I'll accept your view. Until then, don't try and shove it down my throat and I'll extend to you the same courtesy.
Some religious doctrine would have you believe that thinking in such ways is heretical and that it only produces an amoral, wandering, lost soul. I don't feel amoral, nor do I feel lost. I actually feel rather comfortable in living my life under the 'Don't be a dick' credo, and just downright excited to imagine how our understanding of the world will look as I get older.
You know what you call these people are? Not using their brain and don't use critical thinking, rational and reasoning. You're using the emotions excuse as a curtain for these kind of people but in reality your girlfriend is not using her brain to her full potential, I'm sorry to say but it's true. Believing in anything without evidence is ludicrous pure and simple.
Like believing that there is such a thing as "using the brain to a full potential" and furthermore thinking you would have an answer to how such a subjective state would be acheived? Seems pretty narrow-minded to me.
But I get the original point by Torkah. The fact that some beliefs can help people cope, or promote a healthy lifestyle or whatever, that's all about practical implications and it doesn't give any information about if an argument is valid or true.
Anyway, I get more annoyed with "I know the truth because I'm a skeptic armed with critical thinking" than "I know the truth because of my religion". But I like critical thinking as long as it's not followed by "join our cult of critical thinkers". It's like the words skeptic and critical thinking are so often used by people with very extreme ideas that they just make me think about that instead of the scientific method and other nice things.
While reading posts, I came up with this thought. Generally a theory is made in science to pose a hypothesis on just about anything. However, in my experience most experiments are setup to either solve a problem, ask a question, or measure the effects of a situation, or something to similar extents. The thing that sticks out to me is that all of this pertain to some greater influence, or power if you will, at hand. From the basics of chemistry, basic laws of physics, and to a common ancestor, science works to provide answers to where these interactions originate. If you follow me to this point; does not religion work to provide answers to where these interactions originate? Are we as a species not looking for an answer to where this all came from? Does the word God not describe these things? I am saddened by how people attach the word and idea of God to the fundamentalist sects of religion that are obivously created with bad intentions to begin with.
I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
On August 03 2011 13:31 LloydRays wrote: While reading posts, I came up with this thought. Generally a theory is made in science to pose a hypothesis on just about anything. However, in my experience most experiments are setup to either solve a problem, ask a question, or measure the effects of a situation, or something to similar extents. The thing that sticks out to me is that all of this pertain to some greater influence, or power if you will, at hand. From the basics of chemistry, basic laws of physics, and to a common ancestor, science works to provide answers to where these interactions originate. If you follow me to this point; does not religion work to provide answers to where these interactions originate? Are we as a species not looking for an answer to where this all came from? Does the word God not describe these things? I am saddened by how people attach the word and idea of God to the fundamentalist sects of religion that are obivously created with bad intentions to begin with.
The scientific method looks at an effect, and tries to find a cause and comes up with a hypothesis, which when tried and tested becomes a theory.
The religious method is the other way around - "god is the answer/cause, lets shave every square peg to fit this round hole, no matter how illogical, irrational or badly argued". That's part of the reason the whole religious debate is so toxic - its logic versus a lack of logic, its truth versus lying, its fact versus fiction. And im not just talking mythology, im talking the minutiae and historical detail are often lied about to fit a persons faith, and the image of non-believers.
The current pope has famously said that condoms are as bad as abortion and makes AIDS worse, he moved paedophile priests from dioceses where they molested children to other diocese where they reoffended and never reported to police, because the public relations image of the church was more important than justice for abused kids. He likened the rise of atheism to nazism, even though the nazi's were uniformly christian, and Hitler was a catholic and loved to reference god in his speeches. In fact the ill-feeling to jews in Germany was due to hundreds of years of church preaching of the jews being the people who killed christ, not due to a lack of belief in god.
But he gets away with blatant lies and crimes because of his religious status. It sickens me.
On August 03 2011 13:31 LloydRays wrote: While reading posts, I came up with this thought. Generally a theory is made in science to pose a hypothesis on just about anything. However, in my experience most experiments are setup to either solve a problem, ask a question, or measure the effects of a situation, or something to similar extents. The thing that sticks out to me is that all of this pertain to some greater influence, or power if you will, at hand. From the basics of chemistry, basic laws of physics, and to a common ancestor, science works to provide answers to where these interactions originate. If you follow me to this point; does not religion work to provide answers to where these interactions originate? Are we as a species not looking for an answer to where this all came from? Does the word God not describe these things? I am saddened by how people attach the word and idea of God to the fundamentalist sects of religion that are obivously created with bad intentions to begin with.
Maybe, but maybe not. Several years before many things we now know how or why they happen were attributed to God, imagine what would've happened to the world if everyone thought like you, we wouldn't even have iphones, internet or even teamliquid, starcraft! now that would be hell.
We just keep discovering more and more, who knows, maybe we do end up discovering that misterious force and it may very well turn out to not be God.
On August 03 2011 14:26 Cytokinesis wrote: I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
I am very happy to hear you have such an exciting Phd-project to work on. Society will certainly profit immensely from people who work on "very,very,very" modern concepts that relate to "everything else [sic!]". Unfortunately, this thread is not profiting at all from your posts, they rather seem like troll bait to me ...
If you are genuine then you will surely be glad that somebody informed you about this. I would like to end with another pro-tip: In academia, humility is key! Cheers!
On August 03 2011 14:26 Cytokinesis wrote: I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
And you continue with condescension and not actually providing any arguments at all. It is also funny that your ending quote can more easily be applied to your own post (as you actually posted no relevant information) than to other posts in this thread.
Also saying "normal people" about non-philosophers in this context is pretty pejorative and once more reveals your attitude of supremacy. I also find funny the fact that you think philosophy is so complex it would take years to explain, when all I ever saw in philosophy are convoluted arguments that would take much less time to explain than actual scientific/math problems, the only problem in philosophy is getting the jargon.
On August 03 2011 14:26 Cytokinesis wrote: I would LOVE to write about the misinformation in this thread but it simply isn't feasible. My doctoral thesis would cover a very small portion of this thread. It just isn't feasible. It takes a lot more to explain these concepts and abstracts in depth than is possible in this relatively short time. The very specific type of misinformation I will try to add an addendum too has to do with neuroscience and rationality and the problem of the mind and how that relates to EVERYTHING ELSE, including religion. This is a very, very, very modern view that I am willing to bet 99% of the people here don't know about. It's tantamount to discussing chemistry but leaving out the lower half of the periodic table. it just isn't complete.
It's a very large problem in the non-academia environment because normal people don't keep up with research. It's just the way it is. I would love to sit and explain it but it would take me literally years to type what this thread is about out.
This thread REALLY reminds me of Wittgenstein's famous quote from the Ogden translation of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If you don't know exactly what this quote means then I urge you to read and look at the Tractatus.
User was warned for this post
I think all your view on philosophy is flawed... Plato's republic is still one of the most important book in political philosophie yet it was written by a guy who did not care about the current status of "research" in the academic field. Sartre intended to write his own philosophy from nothing, forgetting it's history... does it made his work bad in anyway ?
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
Note but.
Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
It also says it's about certain claims not claims in general. Which claims is specified between those lovely characters. (that is, especially claims about existance of any deity, BUT also...you see where I'm going)
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
I will reiterate my claim : "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." Quoted from wikipedia.
It's about metaphysical claim, and since troll and fairies should have walked down on earth at some point, therefore an agnostic can say that, considering everything we already know about the history of earth, it is false. On the other side, if you claim that it exist a world somewhere in another dimension or another dimension or a metaphysical place where troll and fairies exist, then an agnostic will answer : who knows ?
God is supposed to be beyond matter and time.
Note especially, that does not mean exclusively.
Note but.
Maybe you can re-read that sentence and you will notice two "-" characters denoting inserted sentence. "but" is part of that sentence not the main one so my point stands.
It also says it's about certain claims not claims in general. Which claims is specified between those lovely characters. (that is, especially claims about existance of any deity, BUT also...you see where I'm going)
"especially ... , but also .... " is not in my opinion exclusive list of all claims that "certain claims" refers to. But that is in the end irrelevant semantic bickering. I can just as easily move trolls and fairies under the concept of deities, religious claims or even metaphysical claims. Especially the second one is actually their origin.
^ ^ ^ It's scientism, not scietology. The idea that only science ( not religion nor philosophy) should be used to dictate/ describe the workings of our universe. Not sure why he'd be banned for that, was curious myself.
Lixler was just temp banned for 30 days by Kennigit.
That account was created on 2010-03-03 03:20:07 and had 53 posts.
Reason: Really obnoxious poster. Lose your attitude.
I guess it was his constant one liners and confrontational attitude but that's just my take on this based on his posting history. This is really off topic but I wondered myself and wanted to spare others the search.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://content2.myyearbook.com/zenhex/images/quiz1/1687/1687_res2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png)
