Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 376 of 376

Thread: Why DON'T you believe in GOD ???

  1. #301  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    To be honest I do respect you for being angery, (its better than apathy) and for standing up for religious folk, your words promped me to read more of your previous threads/replys, so, maybe I was a bit hasty of putting a non christian title on you, as I feel that you are attempting in your own way to defend some of the meeker christians and religious folk from the tothless SH lions....thanks.

    sorry I dont have time to reply to the rest of your comments cause'
    Well I hope you do find time later, since I saved the best for last, including a request hear some of your ideas.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  2. #302 Re: I am against book burning Idea hating Nazis. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Justify this statement. I can certainly see that many posters here attack Christianity - that is not the same thing at all as the forum persecuting Christianity.
    I will clarify that statement, which was inaccurate. I should have said that most science forums persecute Christianity as a general rule. In my experience, most moderators and administrators are anti Christian.
    ps if this isnt proof , your response may vindicate my position.
    It sure as hell is not proof and that in no way vindicates your position.
    Please explain how Christianity is persecuted in this forum. Yes, it is attacked by some posters on some occassions. So are Einstein's theories; so is the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory; so are many other political views, scientific principles and religions. I fail to see that these attacks constitue persecution.
    Yes, it is my impression that the majority of the posters here are not Christians. As Neutrino or invert nexus, or someone, pointed out most posters are not anti-Christian, but they are opposed to Christians who take an anti-science attititude based upon faith rather than informed logical reasoning. In what way does that constitute persecution.
    Can you point to any threads that have been closed because 'the Christian was winning the argument'; can you point to any bannings that have been carried out because the poster was espousing Christian views; can you cite a single action on this forum that represents any form of persecution against Christians, or are you simply pointing out, as Mitchell did quite eloquently, that your use of English is suspect at best and downright wrong at worst.

    The majority of the admins/mods on this site are atheist. That is not the same as persecuting Christianity. I would certainly not claim because you are pro-Christian that you are persecuting atheism - what nonsense.

    And if you care to scan some of my posts you will find I am truly neutral, viewing theists as nutters and atheists as assholes, a view I have made clear on numerous occasions - a pox on both your houses. Again, tell me, where is this alleged persecution?
     

  3. #303  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Ah yes the good old persecution complex. You don't have to behave in any socially acceptable manner because everyone's negative reactions to your behavior are just proof that you are a martyr for the cause of God.
    There are times when mans law conflicts with gods law. There are times when mans laws conflicts with ones sense or natural justice. There are times when government takes advantage of its citizens and abuses them under mans law. This leads us to....;;;; TTTT there are times for civil disobedience which would include pushing the envelope on what is socially acceptable even in Internet debate forums! See! Look at how many semi colons and other things I grammatically mucked up, but it got your attention!

    Hitler did not break one law after he came to power; all his actions including genocide were legal, actions under his nation’s laws. What I am getting around to is this; there are times (sounds similar doesn’t it?) the normal, pleasant way of doing things are rendered impotent. For example being non abrasive in a typical Christian way (god bless you, because the meek truly will inherit the earth), in most settings is a guaranteed way of giving power to the other (yes the secular humanists) side. Meekness in this regard is a sure way to fail in a major portion of your Christian duties, yes said said duties, or what God expects of you!

    Yes ,chat rooms and the opinions in them are very small things, but to use a worn out phrase a journey of a thousand mile starts with one small step.

    If the step is small to save a soul , many small steps may be required, and we should be willing as christians to take a million small steps if needed.

    I am exercising, by any method I can, whether it be pointing out loudly and in a shrill like whine , or other methods, the small injustices as well as the large horrors that Christians must endure to remain Christians! If I have offended anyone, well, it is by design, but not malicious design, because the future and well being of our race (the human race) depends on the message of Jesus Christ and that is to love your brother (and sisters) as much as you love yourself.

    You should know that all Christians are persecuted, and will be persecuted until god comes back to earth. BTW, this persecution will increase in intensity violence and hate until the one world government ruled by the antichrist requires Christians to die for their faith. In other words they (we) will be beheaded or worse. So yes I do have a (healthy) persecution complex all christians deserve one!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    authors note...After attempting to edit this mess above I see that didn't quite make the stretch comparing Hitler with the secular humanists, trust me they are one and the same in mind set...heH...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sorry, the Many World Interpretation of quantum mechanics does not work that way.
    I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of QFT. That QFT events are real events and not an arithmetical entity. There is a theory perhaps an offshoot of the many universes theory called the infinite universes theory, which postulates every conceivable universe (and then some in truly infinite, what hogwash!) is real somewhere, so I stand by my statement that my universe and yours has a creator god in it. Would you like me to recommend a book on the subject, I do not trust Internet links as all of them seem to be selling something so their credibility is in question.

    BTW, I referred to this theory in a sarcastic manner as I of course do not believe in the many universe theory (but I do believe in something like it) or the dumb ed out infinite universe theory. If either are in fact true, they (who knows?) wouldnt rule out the existence of a creator!

    oh well I am late for noon paryer and a big mac...I will finish soon, ps thanks, your debate manner has earned my respect.

    ; { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
     

  4. #304  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    You should know that all Christians are persecuted, and will be persecuted until god comes back to earth.
    And I am patiently waiting for you to cite a single instance of persecution of Christians on this forum. I trust your Big Mac will have provided the material sustenance to be able to respond to that simple request.
     

  5. #305 Re: I am against book burning Idea hating Nazis. 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It sure as hell is not proof and that in no way vindicates your position.
    Please explain how Christianity is persecuted in this forum.
    ...
    The majority of the admins/mods on this site are atheist. That is not the same as persecuting Christianity. I would certainly not claim because you are pro-Christian that you are persecuting atheism - what nonsense.
    Is the defense of the dignity and righteousness of the forum part of the job description of the moderators?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    And if you care to scan some of my posts you will find I am truly neutral, viewing theists as nutters and atheists as assholes, a view I have made clear on numerous occasions - a pox on both your houses. Again, tell me, where is this alleged persecution?
    And this is an exaggeration I think. I think Ophiolite really means that, if he sometimes thinks of particular theists as nutters, then just as often he thinks that some of the atheists are assholes. For I have never received the impression from any post of Ophiolite, that Ophiolite thinks that all theists are nutters. I could be wrong, of course, for this could simply be a result of Ophiolites self-moderation, but I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    And I am patiently waiting for you to cite a single instance of persecution of Christians on this forum. I trust your Big Mac will have provided the material sustenance to be able to respond to that simple request.
    I fear that the heavy criticism of RR by Ophiolite and myself may be a bit overwhelming. I certainly do not want to scare this guy off before he can respond to my request regarding open theism. So let me say this in RR's "defense." He seems a bit prone to homiletic hyperbole, and I wonder if this is not a Christian pastoral tradition. He names himself a Reverend and so he maybe acting out the role of his internet character as a streetcorner soapbox hellfire and apocalypse preacher. Now, of course, this particular forum may not be considered the appropriate place for such a character, and so our criticisms are not without justification. But perhaps in this light we can see our way to humor him somewhat and tolerate him as little bit of local color.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  6. #306  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    REV ROSWELL wrote:
    You should know that all Christians are persecuted, and will be persecuted until god comes back to earth.
    And I am patiently waiting for you to cite a single instance of persecution of Christians on this forum. I trust your Big Mac will have provided the material sustenance to be able to respond to that simple request.
    I am just a nutter, would you take my word for it Mr ophiolite? Christians are a target of the SH's because their paradigms are diametrically opposed. Oh, the big mac was a feeble sustenate so I must do a shake and large fries with two apple pies before I finish....

    brb

    : } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
     

  7. #307 I don't agree that science is neutral, far from it 
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Science is necessarily neutral on things which are not measurable or objectively observable. Ultimately everyone must make their own choices in regards to things like this.
    I don't agree that science is neutral, far from it. Mainline science is decidedly anti religion! I came to the conclusion years ago when complementing the origin of the universe, after reading the first printing of “ a brief history of time”. Anyway, The science theory of the day said everything, space time etc, began from nothing in a big bang without need for a creator. This theory of the day has been a science staple for at least 25 years?

    That the universe does not need a designer because it started as a BB is bad logic in anyone’s book, except for a tenured , entrenched , 150 year old institution obsessed with dismissing credible ideas that threaten their power and peer credibility. That institution would be mainstream science.

    Logic would dictate that anything that begins to exist needs a cause then after a cause it needs a mechanism to produce the event. Science while trying to explain the origins of the universe handily ignores these prerequisites asking the science "nutters" (heh) to rely on faith that there is or will be a mechanism and cause,...as zelous tells us...one day.

    yes well, one day in the future a billion years hence I may be famous, however I must live in today. And tonight , its time for a read on Gosnics, i think thats the correct spelling..a cool religion and a off shoot of christianity..I will finish mr M shortly...thanks for your well tthought out reply...


    : } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
     

  8. #308 Re: I don't agree that science is neutral, far from it 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    You answer my one post in such a piecemeal manner, you make me afraid to respond to any of these lest we get side-tracked and never return. Let me quote the very last part of that post to make things easier on everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    I am a open thiest christian as you well know.
    No, I didn't really know this. This is our first real discussion.

    I am close the open theist position but not 100%. I would love to hear your version of open theism, so if you start a thread on that topic I will pay attention to what you write. And I will only criticize if you ask me to. I can limit myself to a simple explanation of the differences (if there are any) between your point of view in mine (without implication of criticism).
    Now, with the hope that you will respond to this above in your next post, I can respond to a few of your other posts since that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of QFT. That QFT events are real events and not an arithmetical entity. There is a theory perhaps an offshoot of the many universes theory called the infinite universes theory, which postulates every conceivable universe (and then some in truly infinite, what hogwash!) is real somewhere, so I stand by my statement that my universe and yours has a creator god in it. Would you like me to recommend a book on the subject, I do not trust Internet links as all of them seem to be selling something so their credibility is in question.
    This "other version" you speak of is only in science fiction not physics. But your conclusion is the same as mine along with consensus of the physics community, simply because it feels bound by the restrictions to what is observable. No doubt the Many Worlds Interpretation will remain a scientific curiosity. I think it is fully equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation, for we can merely interpret these other worlds as the mathematical shadows of worlds which were fully possible but which were never actualized.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Science is necessarily neutral on things which are not measurable or objectively observable. Ultimately everyone must make their own choices in regards to things like this.
    I don't agree that science is neutral, far from it. Mainline science is decidedly anti religion! I came to the conclusion years ago when complementing the origin of the universe, after reading the first printing of “ a brief history of time”. Anyway, The science theory of the day said everything, space time etc, began from nothing in a big bang without need for a creator. This theory of the day has been a science staple for at least 25 years?
    Before I argue with you, let me share an experience of mine. In a discussion in the physics department of the University of Utah which included a few post-docs, which somehow came to the question of God, I responded to a question by one of them, with one of my well reasoned explations that can be found in other threads here. To this one of the post-docs responded, "Well you cannot be a good physicist if you believe in God." I replied by bursting out laughing and saying, "Well I am not." I was on the verge of quitting my second PHD physics research project because I had been losing interest in it for some time.

    The point was that his claim was so absurd as to deserve only laughter as a response. The physics community is full of religious people including Christians. Steven Hawkings is certainly an example of a famous physicist who certainly leans towards atheism. But you must understand the reality behind Steven Hawkings claim, "that we don't need God to explain the universe anymore." Science is devoted to explaining the objectively observable and measurable aspects of reality. And so we must ask ourselves if two important questions. The first is whether the objectively observable and measurable aspects of reality is all there is? And the second is whether the role of God in the lives of the religious is really to explain the objectively observable and measurable aspects of reality? The answer to both questions is clearly no!

    There is no doubt that there are a great many atheists who mistakenly believe that science proves their position. But the truth is that since both God and other things of the spirit are manifestly not objectively observable nor measurable, science cannot say anything about them. The atheist can only choose to believe that what is objectively observable and measurable is all that there is, while Christians and other religious people either choose otherwise or have personal experiences that tell them that this is clearly untrue. By denying the true neutrality of science you are in fact agreeing with these atheists and thus helping them to perpetrate a fraud on everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    That the universe does not need a designer because it started as a BB is bad logic in anyone’s book, except for a tenured , entrenched , 150 year old institution obsessed with dismissing credible ideas that threaten their power and peer credibility. That institution would be mainstream science.
    But the truth of the matter is that the BB theory is an enormous victory for the Christian world view. Before that time atheistic scientists presumed that universe always existed and many refusing to concede this victory to Christianity still try to argue for the idea of a steady state universe in contradiction to the evidence of science. It is only natural that scientists like Stephen Hawking would look for another way out of this dilemna and I believe it is only natural that if he look hard enought that he should find something to justify atheism. This is because it really come down to a choice of faith, whether to believe or not in things which are not objectively observable nor measurable.

    I don't know what your views are on evolution are but I think that the scientific theory of evolution is what your are natually going to get when you look at God's work of creation with eyes which will only see what is objectively observable and measurable.

    I suspect some of what I am saying offends you evangelical sensibilities because you are dedicated to proving to everyone the truth of the Christian world view. But I would like to remind you that salvation is an act of God not of man. Do you think this would really be true, if you could actually objectively prove that Christianity was true?

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Logic would dictate that anything that begins to exist needs a cause then after a cause it needs a mechanism to produce the event. Science while trying to explain the origins of the universe handily ignores these prerequisites asking the science "nutters" (heh) to rely on faith that there is or will be a mechanism and cause,...as zelous tells us...one day.
    That is because what you are explaining is philosophy not science. Philosphy relies on reason alone to answer any question, but physics only seeks to derive the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. Since science relegates questions about the universe as a whole to Cosmology which is a part of physics, the question you are discussing has no place in science, except in the descriptions and explanations to non-scientists, which try to ultimately restrict their conclusion to what can ultimately be based on these mathematical relationships. But the real content of physics is the mathematical equations themselves and not any of the popular science literature (which should really be properly called metaphysics rather than physics).

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    yes well, one day in the future a billion years hence I may be famous, however I must live in today. And tonight , its time for a read on Gosnics, i think thats the correct spelling..a cool religion and a off shoot of christianity..I will finish mr M shortly...thanks for your well tthought out reply...
    No the spelling is Gnosticism and it is most often refered to as the first heresy. But it is really a group of syncretistic religions (meaning that they seem to draw their ideas from many sources) which from an objective point of view should include Christianity as only one example. I cannot say that I find much to admire in either the Syrian-Egyptian Gnosticism based on the philosophies of Plato and Pythagoras, or in the Persian Gnosticism based on the influences of Zoastrianism and Buddhism. Many have admired the Gospel of Thomas, which is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, which has been called a Gnostic text (although it cannot be said to be a part of either of the two branches mentioned above), but on reading I find it to be merely confusing.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  9. #309  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    You answer my one post in such a piecemeal manner, you make me afraid to respond to any of these lest we get side-tracked and never return. Let me quote the very last part of that post to make things easier on everyone.
    Yes, I do answer in parts and the answers are long. I suspect that is because each reply should be a new thread. I will post a thread tonight, or early morning as I have to cram for exam anyway.

    Title; open theism, and the real message of Christ

    I can take criticism but personal attacks have a short audience with me, I might add that you don't attack the person, but rather the idea, which is desirable.

    ; { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
     

  10. #310 Re: Why DON'T you believe in GOD ??? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by F (i L i) P
    it's just a simple question... anyone who has problems with religion and GOD should have an answer for this question... would you like to share the reasons that keep you back from believeing ?
    Do you believe I have a hobgoblin in my pants? If you don't, you should have a damn good reason not to, or else...
     

  11. #311  
    Guest
    I consider myself a rational scientist.
    I was told from a very early age that;
    A) God Made me
    b) God made the universe and all in it.
    c) All people are god's children.

    From this I have drawn the inevitable conclusion that 'God' is all time, all Space, All matter,energy and all history.

    Because it was space, time, matter, energy and history that made me.
    If these did not exist - I would not exist.

    What I do NOT believe in is Heaven Hell or all the little furry extra things that go with them - it follows that Jesus was the 'son' of god but so are the rest of us (ever heard a priest say "God is your father") - well that's my interpretation. It also nicely produces the unified theory of the Creationists and the Evolutionists. And if any of you budding scientists out there want to agree with me and subscribe to my church, I haven't built it yet I'm too busy studying science!
     

  12. #312  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    49
    The reason I don't believe in a god is because there is no convincing evidence for a god’s existence, it’s a fairy tale to me. For me to believe in something I need proof, something tangible. There is no way to prove that god actually exists.
    "Nature is an infinite sphere whos center is everywhere and whose circumferense is nowhere."
     

  13. #313  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    29
    I guess why I do not believe in God is that God can not and never be proven or disproven. Thus God is void. Besides who would want to believe in a God who is distant all the time?
     

  14. #314  
    Guest
    I am told "God made us in his own image"

    In which case about 50% of God does not believe in it's own existence.

    If therefore God has doubt why shouldn't I?
     

  15. #315  
    Forum Freshman Lucid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    56
    For a long time, I was one of those people who said "I can't wholeheartedly follow religion if my logic isn't convinced." I looked to philosophy and Buddhism for meaningful ways to live without God. And you know what, I found what I was looking for. Buddhism teaches that there is an inner peace that humanity has fallen out of contact with, but you can still find the peace again. I also accepted the ethical philosophy of Kant, which seems more like common sense than trying to convince anybody of anything.

    Then I got to thinking... The peace that passes understanding? A common sense of right and wrong? I realized that the things I thought were devoid of God were in fact God himself. It seems like everybody is so caught up in trying to define what God is that we can't just stop and recognize Him in our own hearts.

    That convinced my heart, and once I got over some logical obstacles I found my faith firmly intact. Last night I wrote a really long post in the "God as a Scientific Hypothesis" thread that describes why I think religion is scientifically valid. Instead of summarizing it here, I'll just defer to that post: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=3400&start=15 . It's the one posted on August 29, 2006 at 1:08 am.
     

  16. #316  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    43
    by means of why don't u believe in god... which god do u mean?? i guess we if start asking ppl wut is god, we would get 1 god for every person alive.. hell we might even get 1 god for every1 that every lived...

    every1 has thier own concept n view of who,what,which,when,where n how is god.. therefore u're posted question is quite a hard 1 to agree or argue upon..
     

  17. #317  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    29
    While you cannot prove a negative, you can assume with a high degree of confidence that if there is and continues to be absolutely no empirical evidence of a thing existing, then it doesn't exist
     

  18. #318  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    43
    man.... dun u guys feel this kinda religious arguement is freaking hilarious?? I actually think this is more funny than any jokes u can find on the web...
     

  19. #319  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    humanity is infinitly stupid
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  20. #320  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Dark_PAst27

    by means of why don't u believe in god... which god do u mean?? i guess we if start asking ppl wut is god, we would get 1 god for every person alive.. hell we might even get 1 god for every1 that every lived...
    What nonsense.
    Every body would say the one God, they may refer to different characteristics of God, because people are different, but every characteristic would be found in the scriptoral definition.

    every1 has thier own concept n view of who,what,which,when,where n how is god.. therefore u're posted question is quite a hard 1 to agree or argue upon..
    And one of those concepts would be God does not exist. They know who their talking about dont they.

    Jan.
     

  21. #321  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by GatorFan1984
    While you cannot prove a negative, you can assume with a high degree of confidence that if there is and continues to be absolutely no empirical evidence of a thing existing, then it doesn't exist
    What empirical testing has taken place already?

    man.... dun u guys feel this kinda religious arguement is freaking hilarious?? I actually think this is more funny than any jokes u can find on the web...
    You seriously need to get out more. :wink:

    Jan.
     

  22. #322  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I am standing here and i belive in myself so i guess i belive in god
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  23. #323  
    Forum Sophomore kingjacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    between time and timbuktu
    Posts
    131
    I dont not believe in God, and I dont not believe in God because an omni-everything God is just as reasonable of a theorem if not more reasonable because it doesnt leave as many questions , than the big bang theory or string theiry.
     

  24. #324  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5
    As I se it God did not create the world, the world created God.

    God is (my opinion here) a creature of the human imagination to answere all the questions that seemed impossible for a long time ago. And for some reason the religion still hangs around.

    I dont think religion is a bad thing, many people need something to believe in to get trough with their everyday life. But in the question of beliving, I would say that he does not exist.
    "Time only exist so everything won't happen at once" Albert Einstein
     

  25. #325  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena

    What nonsense.
    Every body would say the one God, they may refer to different characteristics of God, because people are different, but every characteristic would be found in the scriptoral definition.
    Except for the billions of non-Christians.
     

  26. #326  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    This thread is about 1.5-2 years old...
     

  27. #327  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    If God is indeed outside of the physical realm then no amount of empirical evidence is going to prove God.

    And yet, science has the big assumption that everything that exists can be explained by science, but science can't prove this assumption either without incurring a logical loop.

    Simply put, being an agnostic is the smartest choice. :-D
     

  28. #328  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    If God is indeed outside of the physical realm then no amount of empirical evidence is going to prove God.

    And yet, science has the big assumption that everything that exists can be explained by science, but science can't prove this assumption either without incurring a logical loop.

    Simply put, being an agnostic is the smartest choice. :-D
    Unless you consider Occam's Razor...
     

  29. #329  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    If God is indeed outside of the physical realm then no amount of empirical evidence is going to prove God.

    And yet, science has the big assumption that everything that exists can be explained by science, but science can't prove this assumption either without incurring a logical loop.

    Simply put, being an agnostic is the smartest choice. :-D
    Unless you consider Occam's Razor...
    ...which states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

    Fundamentally there is only one assumption invoked for science to be valid: what we can observe and study empirically is all of nature (or that all of nature can be observed or study empirically).

    Three contradictory conclusion arise here:
    1. Yes, all of nature can be observed and studied through science.
    2. No, science cannot explain all of nature
    3. There is no way to verify statement 1 and 2

    Statement 1 and 2 cannot be verified, therefore by Occam's Razor statement 3 must be true, because it involve the least assumptions.

    So yup, I considered Occam's Razor.
     

  30. #330  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    ...which states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

    Fundamentally there is only one assumption invoked for science to be valid: what we can observe and study empirically is all of nature (or that all of nature can be observed or study empirically).

    Three contradictory conclusion arise here:
    1. Yes, all of nature can be observed and studied through science.
    2. No, science cannot explain all of nature
    3. There is no way to verify statement 1 and 2

    Statement 1 and 2 cannot be verified, therefore by Occam's Razor statement 3 must be true, because it involve the least assumptions.

    So yup, I considered Occam's Razor.
    Which states that everything being equal, the simplest solution is almost always the best one. Or something along that manner.

    God rasies an even bigger question than it solves, what created the creator. Such paradoxial concepts are almost always flawed for a reason, they're made up and has nothing to do with reality.
     

  31. #331  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    ...which states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.

    Fundamentally there is only one assumption invoked for science to be valid: what we can observe and study empirically is all of nature (or that all of nature can be observed or study empirically).

    Three contradictory conclusion arise here:
    1. Yes, all of nature can be observed and studied through science.
    2. No, science cannot explain all of nature
    3. There is no way to verify statement 1 and 2

    Statement 1 and 2 cannot be verified, therefore by Occam's Razor statement 3 must be true, because it involve the least assumptions.

    So yup, I considered Occam's Razor.
    Which states that everything being equal, the simplest solution is almost always the best one. Or something along that manner.

    God rasies an even bigger question than it solves, what created the creator. Such paradoxial concepts are almost always flawed for a reason, they're made up and has nothing to do with reality.
    You are applying scientific concept into what science CANNOT explain. Namely, causality. The reason something is "supernatural" is because it does not conform to any scientific construct, or even logic for that matter, that we come up with.

    God, if it even exists, do not even need to have a cause or make any logical sense. Because it is in the first place, well, supernatural. And let's not make any secondary or tertiary assumptions that God is the creator, because with Occam's Razor you have to considered all other things being equal, so let's just concern ourselves with the fundamental assumption that I've given.

    And if you haven't realize, reality is a human construct. For example, the famous brain-in-a-vat thought experiment:



    Since the brain in a vat gives and receives the exact same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since, the argument says, you cannot know whether you are a brain in a vat, then you cannot know whether most of your beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out your being a brain in a vat, you cannot have good grounds for believing any of the things you believe; you certainly cannot know them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
    We can't even be sure whether reality is in fact, reality.

    So instead of giving arbitrary answers to these assumptions, I say we should just stop putting answers to these and acknowledge that there is no way to find out.
     

  32. #332  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I say we should just stop putting answers to these and acknowledge that there is no way to find out.
    I do get your point, but Occam’s razor does not completely discount complex solutions either. That still then makes it a valid criteria whereby to judge the existence of God. I think you two are debating from the corners of atheism and agnosticism. From the agnostic perspective I would agree with you, nothing is absolutely impossible. But the application of Occam’s razor helps divide the likely from the unlikely and in that department, IMO, God is very unlikely, but still not impossible. The thing is that this groups the concept of God, IMO, alongside things like fairies and such. So some people make the personal faith decision of assigning God to the impossible, becoming full blown atheists, while other stay with the "all things are possible" position. I have taken the former route.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  33. #333  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    So some people make the personal faith decision of assigning God to the impossible, becoming full blown atheists, while other stay with the "all things are possible" position. I have taken the former route.
    Fair enough. But obviously it still involve some kind of "faith" and "personal decision" to make that choice, but I for one simply acknowledge my ignorance of such.
     

  34. #334  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    How can you make factual claims to something that isn't just unknown, but unknowable. What kind of twisted logic is that? The brain in the vat is something I'm familiar with in the book by Daniel Dennett "Consciousness Explained." Simulating experiences like our reality is just about infinetly impossible, so it makes a poor example, even Occam's Razor goes against it.

    The definition of the supernatural is "unknown", an intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth.
     

  35. #335  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    How can you make factual claims to something that isn't just unknown, but unknowable.
    I'm confused. Is supernatural "unknown" or "unknowable"? I'd say both, simply because the science today is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things which are untestable and illogical.

    And what are the factual claims?

    What kind of twisted logic is that? The brain in the vat is something I'm familiar with in the book by Daniel Dennett "Consciousness Explained." Simulating experiences like our reality is just about infinetly impossible, so it makes a poor example, even Occam's Razor goes against it.
    Brain in a vat is a thought experiment, if you're familiar with thought experiments such as Quantum Suicide, Schrodinger's cat, Maxwell's Demon, etc we are far beyond talking about the impossibility of the situation given in the experiment, but rather its implications. Simulated experiences like our reality cannot be true, but ironically it also points out that reality, along with consciousness, is by reductionist principle the sum of all our subjective experiences. Brain in a vat simply states that there is no way a brain in a vat can conclusive answer the question "am I a brain in a vat?"

    The definition of the supernatural is "unknown", an intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth.
    So supernatural is not "unknowable", and just "unknown"? And a bit of ad hominem here, but oh well 8)
     

  36. #336  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    I'm confused. Is supernatural "unknown" or "unknowable"? I'd say both, simply because the science today is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things which are untestable and illogical.
    I obviously meant both. :P And making a factual claim that something is unknowable is a bit contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Brain in a vat is a thought experiment, if you're familiar with thought experiments such as Quantum Suicide, Schrodinger's cat, Maxwell's Demon, etc we are far beyond talking about the impossibility of the situation given in the experiment, but rather its implications. Simulated experiences like our reality cannot be true, but ironically it also points out that reality, along with consciousness, is by reductionist principle the sum of all our subjective experiences. Brain in a vat simply states that there is no way a brain in a vat can conclusive answer the question "am I a brain in a vat?"
    But we can for obvious reasons. First of all, we're not a brain in a vat being simulated reality for, and second, we gather information from our senses and can through scientific methods determine where our brains are. Contrary to reality being simulated to us, we are interpreting reality. A wholly different scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    A bit of ad hominem here, but oh well 8)
    Actually, no. An ad hominem is a personal attack on the opponent rather than the argument. I attacked the claim of the supernatural. Replacing one unknown with another is an intellectual lazy patch for "we don't know, and don't want to know."
     

  37. #337  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    And making a factual claim that something is unknowable is a bit contradictory.
    The fact that you're making a statement "something is knowable" is tantamount to you making the statement "something is not unknowable", which is again contradictory, don't you think? Coins have two sides, if you don't get what I mean.

    But we can for obvious reasons. First of all, we're not a brain in a vat being simulated reality for, and second, we gather information from our senses and can through scientific methods determine where our brains are. Contrary to reality being simulated to us, we are interpreting reality. A wholly different scenario.
    We may think that we are gathering information from our senses. We may think that we are interpreting reality.

    To tell the truth, scholars have argued over this thought experiments. People like Hilary Putnam have argued against it, whereas others such as Barry Stroud have argued for it. There is no conclusive response, due to differing assumptions. In fact, the question "what is existence?" and "what is reality?" haven't been addressed since Aristotle times. Putting an definite answer to this seems to be a bit short-sighted for me.

    Consider this situation: A tree fell in a forest, but no 'human' is around to hear it, see it, or detect it, does it make a sound? Can something exist without being perceived?

    There is no right or wrong answer to this, as of now. Depending on how you define 'sound' and 'existence', you come to different conclusions.

    Replacing one unknown with another is an intellectual lazy patch for "we don't know, and don't want to know."
    "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." - Albert Einstein, an intellectually lazy scientist. 8)
    Blog
     

  38. #338  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    The fact that you're making a statement "something is knowable" is tantamount to you making the statement "something is not unknowable", which is again contradictory, don't you think? Coins have two sides, if you don't get what I mean.
    Still, no assumption is to be made without investigation, which is my basic point here.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    We may thought we are gathering information from our senses. We may thought we are interpreting reality.

    To tell the truth, scholars have argued over this thought experiments. People like Hilary Putnam have argued against it, whereas others such as Barry Stroud have argued for it. There is no conclusive response, due to differing assumptions. In fact, the question "what is existence?" and "what is reality?" haven't been addressed since Aristotle times. Putting an definite answer to this seems to be a bit short-sighted for me.

    Consider this situation: A tree fell in a forest, but no 'human' is around to hear it, see it, or detect it, does it make a sound? Can something be exist without being perceived?

    There is no right or wrong answer to this, as of now.
    But it still exists, regardless of our perception. This example is flawed the way I see it. You can, based upon observation of other trees, determine it has fallen and made a sound once you come over it. Before that you are unaware of it. Its really an irrelevant point in my eyes. It fell and made a sound, but we wouldn't know, that's all there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." - Albert Einstein, an intellectually lazy scientist. 8)
    Argument from authority? Non sequitor/Red Herring. Einstein didn't claim anything. His point seems to be that we're not infallible in our understanding of nature.
     

  39. #339  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    no assumption is to be made without investigation
    My assumption here is that "something can be either knowable or unknowable".

    Science assumes that "all that exists is knowable".

    Neither assumptions is verifiable. I don't see why one would think one is more correct than the other.

    But it still exists, regardless of our perception. This example is flawed the way I see it. You can, based upon observation of other trees, determine it has fallen and made a sound once you come over it. Before that you are unaware of it. Its really an irrelevant point in my eyes. It fell and made a sound, but we wouldn't know, that's all there is.
    It's quite a well-known philosophical paradox in fact, but i think you're not quite getting my point.

    Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tr...ls_in_a_forest

    And my Einstein quote isn't quite relevant I admit. :wink: And yes, we are not infallible in our claim that nature is all that we can perceive and nothing more. Humility is the word.
    Blog
     

  40. #340  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    My assumption here is that "something can be either knowable or unknowable".

    Science assumes that "all that exists is knowable".

    Neither assumptions is verifiable. I don't see why one would think one is more correct than the other.
    I don't see why we should care. Whatever is unknown will be made knowable in time. Whatever can't be known will remain unknowable anyhow, and it's a waste of time thinking about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    It's quite a well-known philosophical paradox in fact, but i think you're not quite getting my point.

    Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tr...ls_in_a_forest
    Thanks for mentioning these. I have heard a few thought experiments, but not all.

    Philosophically interesting, but scientificly irrelevant, IMHO. Because when the tree falls it causes soundwaves, regardless of perception. You can't prove this because observation is not allowed, but that only "hides" it from confirmation. There's no logical reason why something would be different if it wasn't observed, the physical effects of the fall will cause soundwaves.

    "To be is to be perceived", I liked that. It reminds us that even perception can be hard to define when we think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    And my Einstein quote isn't quite relevant I admit. :wink: And yes, we are not infallible in our claim that nature is all that we can perceive and nothing more. Humility is the word.
    But not necessary. If there's something beyond the scope of science, which I doubt, it's meaningless to think about it to begin with, an utter waste of time. The scientific method is just about infallible, IMO, because even if the results are wrong etc, it will be found out by repeative testing and fixed. Our understanding of the world can only progress because of our ability to store information.
     

  41. #341  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    I don't see why we should care. Whatever is unknown will be made knowable in time. Whatever can't be known will remain unknowable anyhow, and it's a waste of time thinking about it.
    If there's something beyond the scope of science, which I doubt, it's meaningless to think about it to begin with, an utter waste of time. The scientific method is just about infallible, IMO, because even if the results are wrong etc, it will be found out by repeative testing and fixed. Our understanding of the world can only progress because of our ability to store information.
    Well said. Precisely my opinion too. The existence of the supernatural is indeed irrelevant to life, if it even exists. But FYI philosophy, and epistemology in this case, IS within the scope of science. Thought experiments are valid proofs because it is based on sound logical deductions. Quantum physics commonly make use of them to come up with postulations.

    There's no logical reason why something would be different if it wasn't observed
    Things will always be "different" if it wasn't observed, due to observer effect. When we observe an electron by beaming a photon towards it, we will inherently change its energy state, location, etc. Similar effect for quantum mechanics is addressed in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

    , the physical effects of the fall will cause soundwaves.
    Soundwaves not perceived will remain as simple mechanic movement of air molecule, and not "sound" as we know it. To a plant, a rock, or a Michael Jackson album, sound is non-existent. Taste and smell exist only because we have receptors in our tongue and nose that binds to the respective molecules. Think of it this way, in a parallel universe where there is no life, does reality exists?
    Blog
     

  42. #342  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Things will always be "different" if it wasn't observed, due to observer effect. When we observe an electron by beaming a photon towards it, we will inherently change its energy state, location, etc. Similar effect for quantum mechanics is addressed in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.
    I think there's a possibility this phenomenon is not properly understood yet. I don't doubt the experiment, but the interpretation of it I find a bit vague, which is why I think we should remain a certain skepticism and think about other possible reasons this phenomenon occurs. But for now the evidence implies an observer effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Soundwaves not perceived will remain as simple mechanic movement of air molecule, and not "sound" as we know it. To a plant, a rock, or a Michael Jackson album, sound is non-existent. Taste and smell exist only because we have receptors in our tongue and nose that binds to the respective molecules. Think of it this way, in a parallel universe where there is no life, does reality exists?
    I've got a better one. Did this universe exist before there was life capable of percieving it? I suppose so, there's no logical reason it didn't.
     

  43. #343  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    I've got a better one. Did this universe exist before there was life capable of percieving it? I suppose so, there's no logical reason it didn't.
    By perception, it includes logical deductions as well. Since I'm not those Youth-Earth Creationist that thinks that the universe just popped out from nowhere 4000 years ago, by observing the stars we can safely conclude that universe exists billions of years ago, and maybe even beyond that. However in a parallel universe where there is no life at any point of time to deduce this fact, there is no way to affirm the existence of this hypothetical parallel universe as well. Existence is a relative term in this sense.
    Blog
     

  44. #344  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    By perception, it includes logical deductions as well. Since I'm not those Youth-Earth Creationist that thinks that the universe just popped out from nowhere 4000 years ago, by observing the stars we can safely conclude that universe exists billions of years ago, and maybe even beyond that. However in a parallel universe where there is no life at any point of time to deduce and affirm this fact. Existence is a relative term in this sense.
    And if life suddenly appears in this parallel universe?
     

  45. #345  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    By perception, it includes logical deductions as well. Since I'm not those Youth-Earth Creationist that thinks that the universe just popped out from nowhere 4000 years ago, by observing the stars we can safely conclude that universe exists billions of years ago, and maybe even beyond that. However in a parallel universe where there is no life at any point of time to deduce and affirm this fact. Existence is a relative term in this sense.
    And if life suddenly appears in this parallel universe?
    Then obviously the existence of this parallel universe is affirmed, assuming they become self-aware. Before that there is only uncertainty. Likewise we cannot conclude that such an universe exists until we can detect it, but neither can we conclude logically that it doesn't exist, from our point of view.
    Blog
     

  46. #346  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Then obviously the existence of this parallel universe is affirmed, assuming they become self-aware. Before that there is only uncertainty. Likewise we cannot conclude that such an universe exists until we can detect it, but neither can we conclude logically that it doesn't exist, from our point of view.
    I think we can. Looking at stars that are billions of years old there's a logical conclusion to be made. Unless perception, when first appeared, caused the universe to become "existable." The only thing that makes sense to me is that perception isn't everything.
     

  47. #347  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Unless perception, when first appeared, caused the universe to become "existable".
    That isn't what I said. It is perfectly "existable" before perception appears, but it may also be "non-existable", simply because there is no way to prove it. Only with perceptions can we say with a certain certainty (oh well... no pun intended), assuming perception is reliable, that this universe exists.

    Rather, appearance of perception cause the universe to become "existent" instead of just "existable".
    Blog
     

  48. #348  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    That isn't what I said. It is perfectly "existable" before perception appears, but it may also be "non-existable", simply because there is no way to prove it. Only with perceptions can we say with a certain certainty (oh well... no pun intended), assuming perception is reliable, that this universe exists.

    Rather, appearance of perception cause the universe to become "existent" instead of just "existable".
    I'm sensing a definition problem here, or something, which is what causes these problems of proof. I'm not sure though, but so far I can say that what you're saying is agreeable.
     

  49. #349  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    That isn't what I said. It is perfectly "existable" before perception appears, but it may also be "non-existable", simply because there is no way to prove it. Only with perceptions can we say with a certain certainty (oh well... no pun intended), assuming perception is reliable, that this universe exists.

    Rather, appearance of perception cause the universe to become "existent" instead of just "existable".
    I'm sensing a definition problem here, or something, which is what causes these problems of proof. I'm not sure though, but so far I can say that what you're saying is agreeable.
    Yeah quite true. If I remember correctly "existence" doesn't exactly have a solid definition. So yeah, there will be no end to this argument
    Blog
     

  50. #350  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    So yeah, there will be no end to this argument
    Damn And here I was getting all worked up
     

  51. #351  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    After all this while you still try Obviously. Differences stop there.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
     

  52. #352  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    After all this while you still try Obviously. Differences stop there.
    Only by definition, but not logically, no. I think it's logical to assume that on the large scale, nothing is dependent upon perception.
     

  53. #353  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Oh well, define logic then, and then prove to me logically that logic is independent of perception.
    Blog
     

  54. #354  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Oh well, define logic then, and then prove to me logically that logic is independent of perception.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary
    Logic

    1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
    2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
    3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
    4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
    5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
    Logic is the reality of things, as they are. It is dependent upon reasoning, which is dependent upon perception, obviously. I don't see why I should prove logic to not be dependent upon perception.


    "The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality."

    ~ Wikipedia



    I'm assuming you want a good reason for why I agree by definition and not by logic from what we were talking about.

    The observer is just there to acknowledge the existence, but it still exists without the observer. By defintion something needs to be observed to exist, but logically that contradicts itself (what/who observed the observer etc. Perception is a form of existence by itself, thus the paradox. "Philosophically interesting, scientifically irrelevant", that's what I said, wasn't it?).

    In the end, this all boils down to bare assertion fallacy. No matter how you hide it from any real definition, you can logically find the most likely answer.

    Logically there's no reason why there can't be existence wihtout an observer. If it contradicts itself by definition, it's not likely.

    By the way, just because I think existance isn't dependent upon perception doesn't mean I don't think anything is dependent upon perception. Perception is, after all, dependent upon perception. So logically, logic is dependent upon perception as it is a cognitive ability.

    I hope you're satisfied with this answer... logically, lol
     

  55. #355  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    The observer is just there to acknowledge the existence, but it still exists without the observer.
    It may exists, or it [may] not. I can't see how you can logically come to a conclusion that it exists. It's not just definition, you know. I'm talking about the whole concept of uncertainty here.

    By definition something needs to be observed to exist, but logically that contradicts itself (what/who observed the observer etc. Perception is a form of existence by itself, thus the paradox. "Philosophically interesting, scientifically irrelevant", that's what I said, wasn't it.
    I thought I already acknowledged that perception in itself is a paradox. Brain-in-a-vat experiment and the tree-in-a-forest paradox have addressed this whole problem about reality and existence, haven't they? There is no universally accepted resolution to either as of now.

    My attitude as of now is that I just acknowledge the validity of this whole logic-is-dependent-upon-perception-which-is-dependent-upon-perception paradox, and hold the view that something can either be in a state of existence or non-existence until I perceived it, whether by direct observation (like the sun exists) or indirect inference (like quarks exists).

    Logically there's no reason why there can't be existence wihtout an observer
    Oh did I said that there can't be existence without an observer? I simply said that we're uncertain about the existence. It can exist, or it can't. We cannot deduce an answer logically.

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary
    Logic

    1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
    So in this case, what are you inferring from to determine - correctly or reliably - if something exist?

    In the end, this all boils down to bare assertion fallacy.
    This is so not bare assertion fallacy.

    Fact 1: I see a magnesium ribbon disappearing I react it with hydrochloric acid
    Fact 2: What I see is true.
    Conclusion: Magnesium ribbon disappears when reacts with hydrochloric acid

    This is what we've been doing for all the science experiments.

    We're dealing with perception here, and that for our lives to make sense we have to assume that whatever our perception asserts is by default true (and let's not talk about hallucinations or optical illusion stuff or schizophrenia here). You can believe otherwise though, or you can believe that we can never find out (which sounds quite demoralizing to me, frankly, that you're doubting your own existence).

    There are many assumptions in nature, and mine is that perception is true and reliable. No logical conclusion can be drawn for things that we cannot perceive (via direct observation or indirect inference), because there just isn't anything to infer upon.

    So yes, if logic is dependent upon perception, existence is dependent upon perception, and perception itself is dependent upon perception. We're dealing with uncertainty here.
    Blog
     

  56. #356  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    It may exists, or it [may] not. I can't see how you can logically come to a conclusion that it exists. It's not just definition, you know. I'm talking about the whole concept of uncertainty here.
    There's also the possibility that existence is all there is, or that nothing exists, we're just nonexistant. We can exclude the latter for obvious reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    I thought I already acknowledged that perception in itself is a paradox. Brain-in-a-vat experiment and the tree-in-a-forest paradox have addressed this whole problem about reality and existence, haven't they? There is no universally accepted resolution to either as of now.

    My attitude as of now is that I just acknowledge the validity of this whole logic-is-dependent-upon-perception-which-is-dependent-upon-perception paradox, and hold the view that something can either be in a state of existence or non-existence until I perceived it, whether by direct observation (like the sun exists) or indirect inference (like quarks exists).
    Observation isn't the only tool for logical deductions, in fact, illusions does make our ability to observe rather "half-good." There's research and testing first, and then you can make a logical deduction based upon observation, data collected from tests and research, and interpretation (note that interpretation comes afterwards. Any idea you had from the mere observation might've been wrong, thus trying to disprove that idea, you came to the actual truth of things). Confirmation bias is to be avoided as much as possible.

    The brain-in-the-vat and tree-in-a-forest only becomes a problem by definition, not by logical reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Oh did I said that there can't be existence without an observer? I simply said that we're uncertain about the existence. It can exist, or it can't. We cannot deduce an answer logically.
    Yes we can. The thing with perception, whatever you don't percieve does not exist for you at that moment, but logically it does exist. Closing your eyes doesn't make the world go away.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary
    Logic

    1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
    So in this case, what are you inferring from to determine - correctly or reliably - if something exist?
    As I mentioned right after that: Logic is the reality of things, as they are. I'm trying to determine logically if something can exist wihtout perception, and there's probability involved. You must base your reasoning on evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    This is so not bare assertion fallacy.

    Fact 1: I see a magnesium ribbon disappearing I react it with hydrochloric acid
    Fact 2: What I see is true.
    Conclusion: Magnesium ribbon disappears when reacts with hydrochloric acid

    This is what we've been doing for all the science experiments.

    We're dealing with perception here, and that for our lives to make sense we have to assume that whatever our perception asserts is by default true (and let's not talk about hallucinations or optical illusion stuff or schizophrenia here). You can believe otherwise though, or you can believe that we can never find out (which sounds quite demoralizing to me, frankly, that you're doubting your own existence).

    There are many assumptions in nature, and mine is that perception is true and reliable. No logical conclusion can be drawn for things that we cannot perceive (via direct observation or indirect inference), because there just isn't anything to infer upon.
    There are previous observations and there is knowledge.

    We can determine that the universe likely began 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years ago. We can also determine that in a long period of time, life couldn't possibly have come to existence. The logical deduction is that since the universe had a long period of time where perception wasn't even possible (life for that matter), the universe quite likely existed regardless of perception. One might say perception is dependent upon existence, not the other way around.

    Thus a logical deduction has been made.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    So yes, if logic is dependent upon perception, existence is dependent upon perception, and perception itself is dependent upon perception. We're dealing with uncertainty here.
    There's not just uncertainty here, there's the use of percetion as in the ontological argument for God, which makes a bare assertion fallacy. It's just clever wordplay indicating uncertainty when logically there is just about none.
     

  57. #357  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    There's also the possibility that existence is all there is, or that nothing exists, we're just nonexistant. We can exclude the latter for obvious reasons.
    I don't get what you're trying to prove. We can exclude the latter simply because we perceive to confirm that we exist?

    Observation isn't the only tool for logical deductions, in fact, illusions does make our ability to observe rather "half-good." There's research and testing first, and then you can make a logical deduction based upon observation, data collected from tests and research, and interpretation (note that interpretation comes afterwards. Any idea you had from the mere observation might've been wrong, thus trying to disprove that idea, you came to the actual truth of things). Confirmation bias is to be avoided as much as possible.
    And that's called indirect inference, which is a kind of perception.

    Oh well, let me define perception here, in case you think that by perceive I'm referring to only sensory input. To perceive something means to be conscious of something, through acquisition of knowledge, observation, logical deduction, etc. Any information that is processed by the brain (don't bring up computers, please, don't), I call it perception. Let's stick with this definition. Logical deduction is a form of perception, if that's what's confusing you.

    The brain-in-the-vat and tree-in-a-forest only becomes a problem by definition, not by logical reasoning.
    Logical reasoning is dependent on definition. You've been trying to make them sound like two different issues altogether.

    Example:

    Does aliens exists?

    If you're defining alien as those little green martian you see on TV that shoots people with laser guns, then no. If you define alien as alternative lifeforms, well, maybe. And now thinking about aliens, claiming the god doesn't exists is just as naive as claiming that aliens doesn't exists.

    How can you be sure, seriously?

    Yes we can. The thing with perception, whatever you don't percieve does not exist for you at that moment, but logically it does exist. Closing your eyes doesn't make the world go away.
    Oh well then I guess that just because no single human knows if there is a planet in some parallel universe whose inhabitant is those famous invisible pink elephent, then logically it does exist then. Or logically it doesn't. Oh well.

    As I mentioned right after that: Logic is the reality of things, as they are. I'm trying to determine logically if something can exist wihtout perception, and there's probability involved. You must base your reasoning on evidence.
    Of course there is probability involved, but my issue here is that you're claiming that it is 100% probable for something to exists when we can't perceive it. That's a lot of faith.

    There are previous observations and there is knowledge.

    We can determine that the universe likely began 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years ago. We can also determine that in a long period of time, life couldn't possibly have come to existence. The logical deduction is that since the universe had a long period of time where perception wasn't even possible (life for that matter), the universe quite likely existed regardless of perception. One might say perception is dependent upon existence, not the other way around.

    Thus a logical deduction has been made.
    Refer to my definition of perception. Logical deduction is a form of perception, or rather a result of our perception. If you're blind, mute, deaf, sensationless and tasteless (or whatever is the word haha), and there is no inherited information in our brain (such as instinct, reflex that is again, a result of our ancestor's interaction with the world), or basically our brain is a clean sheet of paper and nothing can be written on it, then how do you make logical deductions?

    There's not just uncertainty here, there's the use of percetion as in the ontological argument for God, which makes a bare assertion fallacy. It's just clever wordplay indicating uncertainty when logically there is just about none.
    I think we are complicating matter too much now. To me it's just as simple as I do not know what you're having for dinner tomorrow because I cannot logically deduce from any existing piece of information what you're going to eat for dinner tomorrow. You might eat a big hamburger tomorrow night, or you might be crunching down cockroaches like crackers, or you might not even eat at all. I cannot just look at what my dad's gonna eat for dinner to determine what you're eating for dinner. There are endless possibilities.

    Likewise, there is no available information indicating the existence of God, and we simply cannot apply what we normally observe in our universe, including the whole idea of perception and logic, to determine if God exists or not. He may, he may not, he may be personal, he may be irrelevant to our lives. How are we to know?

    To me it seems very logical to assume a skeptical position unless there is a conclusive proof. To you it may be just innocent until proven guilty. But hey, who cares, lives still goes on. (Having something to prove is fun though, so do continue with this debate )
    Blog
     

  58. #358  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    I don't get what you're trying to prove. We can exclude the latter simply because we perceive to confirm that we exist?
    Just the fact that we percieve is enough. Perception is a form of existence. Nothing is simply... nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    And that's called indirect inference, which is a kind of perception.

    Oh well, let me define perception here, in case you think that by perceive I'm referring to only sensory input. To perceive something means to be conscious of something, through acquisition of knowledge, observation, logical deduction, etc. Any information that is processed by the brain (don't bring up computers, please, don't), I call it perception. Let's stick with this definition. Logical deduction is a form of perception, if that's what's confusing you.
    Don't see why that would confuse me since I evidently have already said logic depends upon perception...

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Logical reasoning is dependent on definition.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    You've been trying to make them sound like two different issues altogether.
    I admit I have been a little misleading. Definitions are naturally vague. Is a cup of sugar a cup of suger? Or is it a cup of atoms? Or atoms with atoms in it? Definition is dependent upon context, but logic can distinguish where these defined words loose their meaning with... logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Example:

    Does aliens exists?

    If you're defining alien as those little green martian you see on TV that shoots people with laser guns, then no. If you define alien as alternative lifeforms, well, maybe. And now thinking about aliens, claiming the god doesn't exists is just as naive as claiming that aliens doesn't exists.

    How can you be sure, seriously?
    Probability. Life, being quite flexible, is quite likely to appear in numerous places in our universe. Intelligent life however is more unlikely. Evolution has only one goal, which is to survive. Intelligence isn't the endproduct of evolution, nor its goal. It depends on the enviroment if intelligence is to be favoured.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Oh well then I guess that just because no single human knows if there is a planet in some parallel universe whose inhabitant is those famous invisible pink elephent, then logically it does exist then. Or logically it doesn't. Oh well.
    Have you forgotten to apply probability (which is also a part of logical reasoning) and Occam's Razor? The example you gave is actually why I reject the uncertainty of existence without perception, so I guess you made my point :?

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Of course there is probability involved, but my issue here is that you're claiming that it is 100% probable for something to exists when we can't perceive it. That's a lot of faith.
    Please give me a direct quote of me saying that. I've only said that it's more likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Refer to my definition of perception. Logical deduction is a form of perception, or rather a result of our perception. If you're blind, mute, deaf, sensationless and tasteless (or whatever is the word haha), and there is no inherited information in our brain (such as instinct, reflex that is again, a result of our ancestor's interaction with the world), or basically our brain is a clean sheet of paper and nothing can be written on it, then how do you make logical deductions?
    The aquiring of knowledge. Instincts are genetic (certain genes can cause certain behaviour, like with bees. See this as well). We humans learn our children about things, and they learn their children. Through memes (and our ability to store knowledge in books and computers) our knowledge expands through experience, teaching and thinking.

    The mentioning of the brain being a clean sheet of paper where nothing can be written didn't make sense to me in either evolutionary or logical terms. I'm reluctant to respond to it. Our brain has no function without information which is gathered through our senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    I think we are complicating matter too much now. To me it's just as simple as I do not know what you're having for dinner tomorrow because I cannot logically deduce from any existing piece of information what you're going to eat for dinner tomorrow. You might eat a big hamburger tomorrow night, or you might be crunching down cockroaches like crackers, or you might not even eat at all. I cannot just look at what my dad's gonna eat for dinner to determine what you're eating for dinner. There are endless possibilities.
    Basically because there are more options, which makes this a poor example.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Likewise, there is no available information indicating the existence of God, and we simply cannot apply what we normally observe in our universe, including the whole idea of perception and logic, to determine if God exists or not. He may, he may not, he may be personal, he may be irrelevant to our lives. How are we to know?
    By definition God is an unknown. There's no reason to believe he exists. What is his function? What is he supposed to explain? And what explains him?

    Occam's Razor.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    To me it seems very logical to assume a skeptical position unless there is a conclusive proof. To you it may be just innocent until proven guilty. But hey, who cares, lives still goes on. (Having something to prove is fun though, so do continue with this debate )
    I remain my skepsis on a logical grounds and I'm not afraid to make a stand on what I think is most logical. I avoid confimation bias as good as I can, that is what works for me. It can be cold and "A4" in the long run, but I find it interesting.

    I actually enjoy this debate.
     

  59. #359  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Just the fact that we percieve is enough. Perception is a form of existence. Nothing is simply... nothing.
    Which is the whole point about how perception confirms the existence of something, because that's the only option.

    Now, I'm still confused why are we arguing over this. Perception automatically proves existence. Granted. Ok... So?

    I admit I have been a little misleading. Definitions are naturally vague. Is a cup of sugar a cup of suger? Or is it a cup of atoms? Or atoms with atoms in it? Definition is dependent upon context, but logic can distinguish where these defined words loose their meaning with... logic.
    Then isn't it simple.

    By my definition, existence is confirmed by perception, so logically since we can't perceive god, we cannot confirm his existence.

    By your definition, existence is independent of perception, so logically you "reject the uncertainty of existence without perception"

    Both are logical given different definitions, so it boils down to definition after all, doesn't it?

    Probability. Life, being quite flexible, is quite likely to appear in numerous places in our universe. Intelligent life however is more unlikely. Evolution has only one goal, which is to survive. Intelligence isn't the endproduct of evolution, nor its goal. It depends on the enviroment if intelligence is to be favoured.
    Oh well, when I said aliens I meant intelligent lifeforms. It is more unlikely, but you can't totally say that they are unlikely because we are a living proof.

    And there's one big problem with probability. Let's think of this situation: What's the likelihood of an universe like ours appearing from collisions between branes, and which contain a planet called Earth in a Solar system, and two person staring at the screen debating on the subject of why people don't believe god exists. Very unlikely, isn't it?

    Then why are we still here?

    An alien on another parallel universe might just take us to be a joke, just like how you take the invisible pink elephant to be a joke. To me it doesn't prove anything.

    All that I'm trying to say is that God can still exists, given how unlikely it is. I did not say how likely God can exists. He may be sitting up in his garden flowering his plants, while you are thinking that god is a joke just like those aliens in another parallel universe thinking that humans like us is a joke. My stand is that it is irrelevant to us anyway, since we're not going to find out the answer.

    Our brain has no function without information which is gathered through our senses.
    So therefore logic is a result of perception, that's basically my point. It appears that you too agree with it, so no problem here.

    Basically because there are more options, which makes this a poor example.
    That's not the point. Even if you narrow down to two options, hamburger and cheesecake, I still cannot know for sure what you are going to eat, provided I have absolutely zero information about what is your dietary habit.

    By definition God is an unknown. There's no reason to believe he exists. What is his function? What is he supposed to explain? And what explains him?

    Occam's Razor.
    What makes you think that God has to be logical. God doesn't need to be confined in a box called logic. I'm not even sure how you can stick your Occam's Razor out from our natural world into the supernatural world and expects to deduce something meaningful from it.

    I remain my skepsis on a logical grounds and I'm not afraid to make a stand on what I think is most logical. I avoid confimation bias as good as I can, that is what works for me. It can be cold and "A4" in the long run, but I find it interesting.
    Well, I avoid confirmation bias as well. I do not assume that just because logic works in our universe, or even in the whole physical multiverse matrix, it will work in the supernatural world as well. How do you know that in this supernatural world pigs can't fly, and time don't flow backwards, just because it is logical to say so in the world we live in?
    Blog
     

  60. #360  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Which is the whole point about how perception confirms the existence of something, because that's the only option.

    Now, I'm still confused why are we arguing over this. Perception automatically proves existence. Granted. Ok... So?
    It's dependent upon existence, not vice versa. Perception serves to confirm existence, but it is dependent upon it as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Then isn't it simple.

    By my definition, existence is confirmed by perception, so logically since we can't perceive god, we cannot confirm his existence.

    By your definition, existence is independent of perception, so logically you "reject the uncertainty of existence without perception"

    Both are logical given different definitions, so it boils down to definition after all, doesn't it?
    Yes, but the definition must have some logic in it. It has to make sense when applied to a context.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Oh well, when I said aliens I meant intelligent lifeforms. It is more unlikely, but you can't totally unlikely because we are a living proof.

    And there's one big problem with probability. Let's think of the multiverse theory: What's the likelihood of an universe like ours appearing from collisions between branes, containing a planet called Earth in a Solar system, and with two person staring at the screen debating on the subject of why people don't believe god exists. Very unlikely, isn't it?

    Then why are we still here?
    Well, that's an inaccurate way of applying probability. What's there to say it could be any different? There are several factors involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    An alien on another parallel universe might just take us to be a joke, just like how you take the invisible pink elephant to be a joke. To me it doesn't prove anything.

    All that I'm trying to say is that God can still exists, given how unlikely it is. I did not say how likely God can exists. He may be sitting up in his garden flowering his plants, while you are like those aliens in another parallel universe thinking that humans like us is a joke. My stand is that it is irrelevant to us anyway, since we're not going to find out the answer.
    I actually consider God in logical terms to be infinetly improbable. Aliens in a parallel universe are more probable than God. A pink elephant in a parallel universe who can do calculus is more probable than God.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    So therefore logic is a result of perception, that's basically my point. It appears that you too agree with it, so no problem here.
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    That's not the point. Even if you narrow down to two options, hamburger and cheesecake, I still cannot know for sure what you are going to eat, provided I have absolutely zero information about what is your dietary habit.
    Provided you have zero info, yes. Had you known what was most common you would've assumed that. Probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    What makes you think that God has to be logical. God doesn't need to be confined in a box called logic. I'm not even sure how you can stick your Occam's Razor out from our natural world into the supernatural world and expects to deduce something meaningful from it.
    I'm not sure the supernatural deserves this kind of definition avoidance.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Well, I avoid confirmation bias as well. I do not assume that just because logic works in our universe, or even in the whole physical multiverse matrix, it will work in the supernatural world as well. How do you know that in this supernatural world pigs can't fly, and time don't flow backwards, just because it is logical to say so in the world we live in?
    How can you assume the supernatural world exists? It doesn't make any sense. To make factual claims that the supernatural world is not bound by logical constructs suggests its just a world made by our imagination, which makes it nonexistant.
     

  61. #361  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    It's dependent upon existence, not vice versa. Perception serves to confirm existence, but it is dependent upon it as well.
    Ok fair enough.

    Q1. Can there be perception without existence? No.

    Q2. Can there be existence without perception? Yes.

    Q3. Can there be non-existence without perception? Yes.

    It's still uncertainty.

    Yes, but the definition must have some logic in it. It has to make sense when applied to a context.
    So under what context is my first statement, "by my definition, existence is confirmed by perception, so logically since we can't perceive god, we cannot confirm his existence", illogical?

    I'm not sure the supernatural deserves this kind of definition avoidance.
    Why not? Confirmation bias?

    Well, that's an inaccurate way of applying probability. What's there to say it could be any different? There are several factors involved.
    My point is that probability shouldn't even be used here, at all. As long as there is a possibility that something exists, one cannot say for sure whether something do not exists.

    Quoting from wikipedia,

    Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that the sun will rise the next day, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the sun might be destroyed; the earth might be shattered in collision with a rogue asteroid or that person might die before the alarm goes off.)
    As long as you agree that there is a extremely small, but finite, degree of doubt, agnosticism is valid. Then the difference comes about whether you are an agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist. I'm the former one I might add, but making an absolute statement such as "god cannot exist" is not logical. And seriously, I do not care about whether god exists or not. I'm just acknowledging this possibility that he might somehow miraculously be up there in heaven.

    The difference between you and I is that you equate a highly improbable event to impossible, whereas I just take the highly improbable event at face value, and say that it is by definition possible. There is a thin line between impossibility and possibility.

    Especially so if we assume supernatural to be logically and empirically untestable, all the more probability is irrelevant in this context.

    How can you assume the supernatural world exists? It doesn't make any sense. To make factual claims that the supernatural world is not bound by logical constructs suggests its just a world made by our imagination, which makes it nonexistant.
    I assumed that supernatural world CAN exists. I don't know for sure whether it exists or not.

    You are likewise assuming that logic is an universal concept, because our entire universe is logical.

    Logic is under the domain of nature. Supernatural is by definition empirically untestable, because if it is testable empirically then by definition it is logical. You cannot deduce whether a supernatural world exists by logical reasoning.
    Blog
     

  62. #362  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    To say the supernatural exists outside the physical realm is self-contradictory because "outside the physical realm" can only be valid within the physical world, this is commonly known as a stolen concept fallacy. If I say "Ovbalqui" is not a sphere, I really haven't addressed what "Ovabalqui" is. You're giving the supernatural a negative definition by telling me it's untestable and outside the physical world. You have not told me what it is, thus the paradox.

    We can also ask this question:

    Can something that exist not be physical?
     

  63. #363  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Supernatural can only take on a negative definition because there is no way to perceive it, and the best way to define it is by comparison with something we can readily perceive. If you need to define something you need to first perceive it and infer from your perception, its property. When I say something is "not an apple", it can be anything from the invisible pink elephant to just orange, or it can be nothing. Nonetheless I'm still making a logical statement: it is not an apple.

    Can something that exist not be physical?
    As I said, I do not know. Firstly is there a coherent definition to physical? This might not be the best example, but is time a "real" physical property, or just an imaginary human construct to measure something else?

    Read this article: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun...tart:int=1&-C=

    ... Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time.
    It has been suggested that time is in fact a human fabrication, and in reality it is non-existence. Time is not observable. It is a fictitious variable. So do time exist or not?

    And you see, once we start to nitpick on such thing as "Can there be existence without being physical?" We need to define existence, physical, reality, etc etc. My stand is that there is no single, coherent and logical answer, for any of these terms. Maybe philosophers and physicists can come to a consensus in the future, but I don't see why are you defining "existence", "reality", logically or not, when philosophers down the age haven't make up their mind on a single definition, however logical they tries to be. It's like you claiming that "yes, this current model of evolution is the absolute correct one", when there are so many conflicting theories within evolution that make taking any sides now meaningless.
    Blog
     

  64. #364  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    There's never a scientific consensus on anything, there's always uncertainty. Time is just a concept used to measure change. I think you're confusing spacetime with time, there is an actual difference. As for what I consider physical, I would go with particles and waves. Physical forces like spacetime (gravity) might as well be a product of matter and energy, or by-product, in a way they cause these forces to appear with their existence.

    As for evolution, there's no huge problems at all. The theory is consitent with a lot of other fields, one might call evolution the grand unifying theory of biology. Without it, these fields wouldn't make as much sense as they do now:

    • Genetics
    • Medicine
    • Histology
    • Paleontology
    • Immunology
    • Cellular Biology
    • Molecular Biology
    • Anthropology
    • Anatomy
    • Embryology
    • Ecology


    Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and people who reject it are mostly just ignorant or inconsitent.

    Getting back to what we were talking about...

    But a negative definition doesn't work for anything. In order to define something in that way, you would have to account for everything it's not (that might as well be an infinite number of things). I might say something is not a car and would have to exclude everything until I reached the conclusion it was an apple. And if I exclude everything, eventually I'm left with nothing. The conclusion might be that it's supernatural, but it might as well be nothing at all, and that is the most logical conclusion (nothing). You base your conclusions on what you know and work on what's most likely according to evidence. Even if you exclude everything it's not, you haven't accounted for what it is, thus the fallacy.
     

  65. #365  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    As long as there is no consensus, drawing any conclusion is therefore inaccurate and meaningless. That's what I'm trying to say. I'm not going to argue about time since I already acknowledged that I don't think that's the perfect example and I don't really feel like spending time to research that topic. As of now, I have no working positive definition of supernatural, so the best is that I can say about supernatural is that it maybe immaterial and nonphysical, among other possibilities.

    And if I exclude everything, eventually I'm left with nothing. The conclusion might be that it's supernatural, but it might as well be nothing at all, and that is the most logical conclusion (nothing).
    Again, as long as there is a possibility that supernatural can exists, that it is viable as one of the options, it is logical to believe supernatural can exist.

    You have to prove to me how there is zero possibility that supernatural world can exists. But most likely you're just going to attack the definition of supernatural so it would just end up into another definition issue.
    Blog
     

  66. #366  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    There's never any consensus on anything, therefore every conclusion is inaccurate and meaningless? Evolution is meaningless? Gravity? There can be made a conclusion yet the possibility for something else is still considered in the background, but not as strongly as the conclusion made. The probability must be decided on a logical basis. I actually didn't attack much of the definition, but took that into account of logical improbability.

    Logical points, the reason I don't have any logical reason to believe in the supernatural:
    • The fact that the supernatural is defined as a negative (unknown), revealing a fallacy.
    • The fact that everything ultimately works through simplicity, and works itself to complexity, makes the supernatural extremely improbable. Everything being equal, the supernatural works as a poor explanation for anything, raising an even bigger question than it solves.
    • The premise that natural, scientific and logical methodologies are excluded because their assumed useless, "defines" the supernatural away from any method of investigation. Taking into account the scientific method which works even if the preconcieved idea is false.
    • The fact that the supernatural has been used to explain phenomenons which later was to be explained in natural terms.

    The probability, when taking into account the above, that the supernatural exists becomes quite improbable indeed. There's not an equality of probability between the idea that there might be something "beyond", and there might not be. Logically there's a stronger case for there not being anything supernatural than the idea that there might be.

    You take a walk outside, see a tree, and then think, "hmm, this tree couldn't possibly come by itself, there must be strange powers at work here." Then you think, "But considering Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation is that this tree grows, as everything else grows, but to slow for me to notice." Here also you can say that "you can't exclude the possibility that there might be mystic powers that poofed the tree into existence, and there's no logical reason to think it's improbable", when in fact there is.

    The reality is that the supernatural per definition can't ever be proved nor disproved alone works as a logical self-contradiction. I can hold up my mobile phone to you saying, "you can't prove nor disprove the fact that you can see this mobile." The response is, "but of course I see it, I can touch it and throw something at it hitting it. Surely that proves I can see it." "No", the one holding the mobile says, "there's an equally large probability that the mobile is an illusion, and there's no logical reason that that can't or can be true." That statement is wrong, because there are logical reasons to say that the mobile is visable and you see it. Occam's Razor and evidence.

    I'll leave this as a last post. Unless something new comes up.
     

  67. #367  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    You are just assuming that supernatural is used to explain natural phenomenon which may not be true at all. Occam's razor is used to eliminate the more complex explanation in favor of the simple one, but supernatural in the first place doesn't try to explain anything.

    Negative definition is not a fallacy. Many negative definition exist in mathematics, take for example set theory:

    {x | x is a positive integer that is not four} which gives {1,2,3,5,...}

    {x | x is a positive integer that is not a multiple of 7} gives {1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9...,13,15,16...69,71}

    The fact x is given a negative definition - "not four", "not a multiple of 7" doesn't make it a fallacious stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
    I shall also summarize my own stand here:

    • 1. Meaningful statement about physical phenomena is always qualified by some degree of doubt. There is no absolute certainty unless in trivial cases that the predicate of a subject is true by definition (eg. "All squares have four sides".)
      2. Supernatural is defined as unknowable, empirically untestable. It is impossible to prove or disprove its existence with logic, since in doing so it contradicts its definition.
      3. Supernatural is irrelevant to the natural world, and do not explain any natural phenomenons, as its definition excludes it from natural explanations.
      4. Supernatural may be non-existent for the same reason as 2.


    This shall also be my last post until you have something new to add.
    Blog
     

  68. #368  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    I shall also summarize my own stand here:

    • 1. Meaningful statement about physical phenomena is always qualified by some degree of doubt. There is no absolute certainty unless in trivial cases that the predicate of a subject is true by definition (eg. "All squares have four sides".)
      2. Supernatural is defined as unknowable, empirically untestable. It is impossible to prove or disprove its existence with logic, since in doing so it contradicts its definition.
      3. Supernatural is irrelevant to the natural world, and do not explain any natural phenomenons, as its definition excludes it from natural explanations.
      4. Supernatural may be non-existent for the same reason as 2.


    This shall also be my last post until you have something new to add.
    Excellent post. Well said.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  69. #369  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    I shall also summarize my own stand here:

    • 1. Meaningful statement about physical phenomena is always qualified by some degree of doubt. There is no absolute certainty unless in trivial cases that the predicate of a subject is true by definition (eg. "All squares have four sides".)
      2. Supernatural is defined as unknowable, empirically untestable. It is impossible to prove or disprove its existence with logic, since in doing so it contradicts its definition.
      3. Supernatural is irrelevant to the natural world, and do not explain any natural phenomenons, as its definition excludes it from natural explanations.
      4. Supernatural may be non-existent for the same reason as 2.


    This shall also be my last post until you have something new to add.
    Under your definition of "supernatural" if the fire god Svarog were to appear to me tomorrow, demonstrated his mighty magical powers, demanded that I worship him and spread word of his might - and I recorded the whole thing on video - that would not be a "supernatural" event, since I would have empirical evidence of it.

    You can define it that way if you want, but it seems pretty far out of line with the way the vast majority of people use the word. When Jesus conjured things out of thing air it was supposed to be empirical evidence of his divinity, but most people would still consider it supernatural.

    I understand the logic behind what you are saying and in many ways I like your definition better, but that's just not what the word means.
     

  70. #370  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Under your definition of "supernatural" if the fire god Svarog were to appear to me tomorrow, demonstrated his mighty magical powers, demanded that I worship him and spread word of his might - and I recorded the whole thing on video - that would not be a "supernatural" event, since I would have empirical evidence of it.

    You can define it that way if you want, but it seems pretty far out of line with the way the vast majority of people use the word. When Jesus conjured things out of thing air it was supposed to be empirical evidence of his divinity, but most people would still consider it supernatural.

    I understand the logic behind what you are saying and in many ways I like your definition better, but that's just not what the word means.
    Then these religious people have to argue based on their definition of supernatural, simple as that. If they somehow manage to proof that we can use natural laws (such as logic and empirical methods) to prove that supernatural, by their definition, exists, then kudos to them. That's not my job.
    Blog
     

  71. #371  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    You are just assuming that supernatural is used to explain natural phenomenon which may not be true at all. Occam's razor is used to eliminate the more complex explanation in favor of the simple one, but supernatural in the first place doesn't try to explain anything.

    Negative definition is not a fallacy. Many negative definition exist in mathematics, take for example set theory:

    {x | x is a positive integer that is not four} which gives {1,2,3,5,...}

    {x | x is a positive integer that is not a multiple of 7} gives {1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9...,13,15,16...69,71}

    The fact x is given a negative definition - "not four", "not a multiple of 7" doesn't make it a fallacious stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
    I shall also summarize my own stand here:

    • 1. Meaningful statement about physical phenomena is always qualified by some degree of doubt. There is no absolute certainty unless in trivial cases that the predicate of a subject is true by definition (eg. "All squares have four sides".)
      2. Supernatural is defined as unknowable, empirically untestable. It is impossible to prove or disprove its existence with logic, since in doing so it contradicts its definition.
      3. Supernatural is irrelevant to the natural world, and do not explain any natural phenomenons, as its definition excludes it from natural explanations.
      4. Supernatural may be non-existent for the same reason as 2.


    This shall also be my last post until you have something new to add.
    You actually prove my point.

    Sure, there's uncertainty, but to what degree? As Scifor Refugee pointed out (and I pointed out earlier), the concept of "immaterial", or "outside the physical world" is only valid within the physical realm. As soon as something "immaterial" enters the physical world, and you can see it or sense it, it contradicts itself by definition. This is called the stolen concept fallacy, if I'm not mistaking. It contradicts itself by definition because we've used logic to define it impossible to prove.

    Anyhow, the existence of the supernatural, when logic is not allowed, becomes extremely complicated by definition, thus Occam's Razor deems it not only unecessary, but immensly improbable.

    I agree with you to some extent.
     

  72. #372  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    As soon as something "immaterial" enters the physical world, and you can see it or sense it, it contradicts itself by definition.
    Which is impossible by definition. Going by the statement "all triangle have three sides", if there is a triangle that has only one side then it's not a triangle anymore. This is simply illogical.

    It contradicts itself by definition because we've used logic to define it impossible to prove.
    Logic is not used to define "supernatural is impossible to prove". Logic is not used to define "triangles have three side". Logic is not used to define "All bachelors are unmarried". Logic is not used to define "darkness is the absence of light". It is just true by definition.

    That's why I said that the only way you can prove that supernatural is impossible to exist is to undermine its definition. I am arguing based on my definition, and you want to go by another definition then feel free to do so.
    Blog
     

  73. #373  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    The only way you can prove if there is a god or not is by dying, and I guess no one wants to do that.

    so think about this, since the dawn of man there has been somthing greater then them selves, whether its Odin, Poesidon or God there was always somthing there in mans mind.

    This can mean two things:

    There is somthing upthere or
    The human mind and psyche is just too weak to not think that there is a meaning to things, to weak to live without someone above them.

    Just look at all the great leaders we have had through out history, every single one of them has fallen in the end, cause the presure is to high.
     

  74. #374  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah
    Which is impossible by definition.* Going by the statement "all triangle have three sides", if there is a triangle that has only one side then it's not a triangle anymore. This is simply illogical.*

    Logic is not used to define "supernatural is impossible to prove". Logic is not used to define "triangles have three side". Logic is not used to define "All bachelors are unmarried". Logic is not used to define "darkness is the absence of light". It is just true by definition.*

    That's why I said that the only way you can prove that supernatural is impossible to exist is to undermine its definition.* I am arguing based on my definition, and you want to go by another definition then feel free to do so.*
    • Exacly.
    • That's true for something that's known. The supernatural is not known. By definition you cannot be sure if the supernatural is unknowable, only that it's unknown.
    • Logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and demonstration. It studies the validity of statements and arguments. "Supernatural is impossible to prove" is not a definition, it is a statement, the definition is used as an argument, because the definition is "unknown" (it can be argued that the supernatural is by definition, not defined), thus possibilities of the supernatural being beyond our structure of reasoning and, in principle, an infinite amount of other possibilities becomes apparent. However, something which works only by a negative definition is most likely bullocks. You haven't (as I've already pointed out many times) defined the supernatural.
    • Which I have. The definition is that it's not defined, which makes it fail in both consistency and soundness.
    • And thus the problem. No definition can be made on something defined undefined. You can't prove a negative for a reason.


    Occam's Razor. That's all I have to say. Don't multiply entities unnecessarily. I've said that I agree with you to some extent, which you didn't get. I told you that I'm not certain in my conclusions, which you didn't get.

    Frankly, there's a lot you didn't get, and I'm tired of debating my points over and over again.
     

  75. #375 cialis online lubricator 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1
    buy cialis can tussle in of steam blood mosey to the optic boldness of the susceptivity, causing surprising eidolon loss. This has occurred in a girlish cluster of people intriguing Cialis, most of whom also had marrow lash, diabetes, unwarranted in progression blood incline up the fervidness on, tipsy cholesterol, or conspicuous pre-existing despatch problems, and in those who smoke or are radical all about 50 years old.

    It is not discernibly whether Cialis is the existent belt of revenant loss. A to missing of life's-work using Cialis and attainment subject to be medical block if you upright a bon mot on unannounced eyeshot loss.

    FDA pregnancy subdivision B. generic cialis is not expected to distress an unborn baby. Exhort known your doctor if you are fraught or act to for fear of the fact abounding during treatment. It is not known whether tadalafil passes into tit trickle or if it could wickedness a nursing baby. Do not iron into mending this medication without top-level your doctor if you are breast-feeding a baby.
     

  76. #376  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    To think a spam-post would bring up this thread...
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •