| |
| Why DON'T you believe in GOD ??? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| arkofnoah |
 Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Quote: |
| 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.
| Quote: |
| 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?
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure the supernatural deserves this kind of definition avoidance. |
Why not? Confirmation bias?
| Quote: |
| 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,
| Quote: |
| 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.
| Quote: |
| 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.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Obviously |
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1524
Location: Norway
|
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?
_________________
DON'T visit Philosophorum! It's bad for your peace of mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
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.
| Quote: |
| 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/in-no-time/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
| Quote: |
| ... 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.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1524
Location: Norway
|
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.
_________________
DON'T visit Philosophorum! It's bad for your peace of mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
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.
| Quote: |
| 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.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1524
Location: Norway
|
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.
_________________
DON'T visit Philosophorum! It's bad for your peace of mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
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.
| Wikipedia wrote: |
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.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 2878
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
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.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1524
Location: Norway
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
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.
| Wikipedia wrote: |
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.
_________________
DON'T visit Philosophorum! It's bad for your peace of mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Quote: |
| 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.
| Quote: |
| 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.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pikkhaud |
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 137
Location: Norway
|
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.
_________________
There is no I in team, but there is a me though if you juble it a bit.
The more seeds I grow the more pot I can smoke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1524
Location: Norway
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
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.
_________________
DON'T visit Philosophorum! It's bad for your peace of mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pericaov |
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: cialis online lubricator |
|
|
Banned (Spammer)
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Location: USA
|
[url=http://originalcialis.com]buy cialis[/url] 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. [url=http://mycialisrx.com]generic cialis[/url] 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.
_________________
banned for spamming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
