|
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.
Blasphemer! Everybody knows that the pursuit of Wigglyjogglies is the path to hell! Help find the Flibberwocky!
|
Can we find both and chuck whichever god dislikes? I want to hedge my bets 
|
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.
Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!
|
On March 27 2015 05:43 Daumen wrote:
I heard about the theory that Slums exist in a City when its population reaches a high enough number where people dont know each other by name anymore. (not a literal quote, quoted by memory)
Plato came up with it according to the Video where I heard it first, but was it really plato?
Whoever came up with it is dead wrong, though, so does it matter?
|
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!
Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.
I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.
|
On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong! Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off. I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.
Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.
|
On March 27 2015 06:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:43 Daumen wrote:
I heard about the theory that Slums exist in a City when its population reaches a high enough number where people dont know each other by name anymore. (not a literal quote, quoted by memory)
Plato came up with it according to the Video where I heard it first, but was it really plato? Whoever came up with it is dead wrong, though, so does it matter?
Not knowing a large percentage of your neighbors can't help matters though. Many people with weaker moral compasses will have much less trouble victimizing people they don't know. People will feel more guilty about committing crimes against people they know personally. They're also more likely to help people they know personally.
I don't think that's the sole reason slums exist, but it certainly seems like a contributing factor.
|
On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong! Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off. I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two. Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.
electromagnetism is a model that describes how things work and a lot of stuff is engineered on principles we know are true. we've also seen evidence for the strong force. i don't think these are "abstract" in the way thieving magpie is using "abstract," since they are models for observable physical phenomena. just go by the popper principle of falsifiable = empirical = not abstract, and conversely, non-falsifiable = abstract. both the dominant models of electromagnetism and the strong force imply numerous physical predictions that are verifiable and falsifiable.
|
On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong! Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off. I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two. Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.
Which is why I said "derived or observed"
Lots of thing can be observed using a different form of sensing artificial or otherwise. Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.
Unobserbable concepts like the afterlife, or "what if we never" or "if I we did not" etc... Things that cannot be observed or unobserved are in the realm of philosophy until evidence is found that brings it into evidence based discourse.
|
On March 27 2015 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong! Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off. I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two. Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts. Which is why I said "derived or observed" Lots of thing can be observed using a different form of sensing artificial or otherwise. Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes. Unobserbable concepts like the afterlife, or "what if we never" or "if I we did not" etc... Things that cannot be observed or unobserved are in the realm of philosophy until evidence is found that brings it into evidence based discourse.
While the absense of evidence is not necessarily always the evidence of absense, I would like to know where the soul resides. Or if you don't need a soul for afterlife, what method of transformation is there from the life to the afterlife?
Because I don't see why "the afterlife" (and with it, God) is given this magical status outside of the known universe, and is categorically unfalsifiable? Why is this an "abstract matter" in a seperate epistemic category from other things like electromagnetism?
|
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
it's like... how do i know there isn't a parallel universe with me missing one ear, having lost it in an accident a few years back? it's a non-falsifiable proposition, though by the manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics/probablistic phenomena, it's certainly possible and imaginable.
|
Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.
no, it is not
|
On March 27 2015 08:24 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.
no, it is not
the mathematics that we have, the one that every human professing to use and work with mathematics in the physical, empirical world, is undoubtedly derived at its origin from "real world observations." even though a great proportion of mathematics has developed independently of real world observations, the origin is still the real world.
whether or not pure logic exists and mathematics "exists" without humans having derived it is a metaphysical and ontological question that i personally find worthless, even though my intuition points towards "yes."
|
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??
Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH
|
On March 27 2015 08:30 SoSexy wrote:
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??
Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH
is it really time sensitive and for a first-come-first-serve rolling acceptance kind of thing? if so, emphasize that and express your sincere concern that his lack of timeliness is hurting your chances. of course your mileage may vary based on his personality, but i don't think being direct should hurt. if not, suck it up because it doesnt matter anyway, as long as he gets it in by his deadline?
|
On March 27 2015 08:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It's not my stance, it's pascal's.
He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.
He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.
I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.
At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong! Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off. I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two. Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts. Which is why I said "derived or observed" Lots of thing can be observed using a different form of sensing artificial or otherwise. Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes. Unobserbable concepts like the afterlife, or "what if we never" or "if I we did not" etc... Things that cannot be observed or unobserved are in the realm of philosophy until evidence is found that brings it into evidence based discourse. While the absense of evidence is not necessarily always the evidence of absense, I would like to know where the soul resides. Or if you don't need a soul for afterlife, what method of transformation is there from the life to the afterlife? Because I don't see why "the afterlife" (and with it, God) is given this magical status outside of the known universe, and is categorically unfalsifiable? Why is this an "abstract matter" in a seperate epistemic category from other things like electromagnetism?
Afterlife =\= god =\= soul
It just the concept of something being present after you die or after life.
Christians say it's A
Non-Christians say it's B
This continues to infinity (or let's say N)
There are N possible predictions for what happens after you die, one of them is that nothing happens.
God is in some of them, not all of them.
The soul is involved in some of them, not all of them.
There are infinite variations and infinite permutations and not all are a collective conclusion.
Example: Calvanist believes it's already predetermined who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. What we do in life has no bearing on it--so lots of them began to practice "atheism" since it didn't matter one way or another. There wasn't an "afterlife" that people went to, there was an afterlife for some and none for others.
The N possibilities could be total, it could be selective, it could require our direct actions, it could require our indirect actions--it's literally just N possible scenarios after you die, one of those scenarios being that nothing happens.
|
On March 27 2015 08:33 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:30 SoSexy wrote:
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??
Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH is it really time sensitive and for a first-come-first-serve rolling acceptance kind of thing? if so, emphasize that and express your sincere concern that his lack of timeliness is hurting your chances. of course your mileage may vary based on his personality, but i don't think being direct should hurt. if not, suck it up because it doesnt matter anyway, as long as he gets it in by his deadline?
Yeah, he is my tutor and trusts me a lot (even said 'you can do them on my behalf, I trust you', but the majority needs to be sent by his e-mail address anyway). It just bothers me that he says 'I'm going to do it tomorrow' and then 15 days pass. I'll just suck it up, I guess.
|
on the other hand, lots of Calvinists worked really hard and tried really hard to seem like one of the Elect, because everyone wants to be the Elect, at least if Max Weber's writing on the protestant work ethic is to be believed as credible.
i personally believe there's no afterlife in the sense of "being" something that can remember the contents of one's life, because i personally believe the experience of consciousness (including memory and such) is an entirely physical phenomena. if you believe consciousness has or requires a metaphysical component, however, it's clear that an afterlife is possible.
On March 27 2015 08:43 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:33 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 27 2015 08:30 SoSexy wrote:
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??
Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH is it really time sensitive and for a first-come-first-serve rolling acceptance kind of thing? if so, emphasize that and express your sincere concern that his lack of timeliness is hurting your chances. of course your mileage may vary based on his personality, but i don't think being direct should hurt. if not, suck it up because it doesnt matter anyway, as long as he gets it in by his deadline? Yeah, he is my tutor and trusts me a lot (even said 'you can do them on my behalf, I trust you', but the majority needs to be sent by his e-mail address anyway). It just bothers me that he says 'I'm going to do it tomorrow' and then 15 days pass. I'll just suck it up, I guess.
if you really start to doubt whether he'll actually finish it by the deadline, maybe you can write a version yourself just to hold onto and send on the deadline just in case. sounds like a hassle, but i imagine it's an exercise that will help you in your thinking about how to present yourself in interviews and such in the future, and it should take the edge off your annoyance at him.
|
Thanks Tuna. I guess I just can't get over the fact that some people can't even lose 3 minutes of their time with the wages they get :O
|
yea sry i feel you on the annoyance for sure, i'm super conscious of keeping promises and being on time and stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
