All in the Mind!
Offline Been a while since I visited here. Took stock of my life and views after having second thoughts regarding being atheist. Yes, I had a "relapse"...I mean, come on, who of us wouldn't like to
know for certain where everything began and what happens after death, as claimed by religion?
However, at the end of all the meandering, I came to a conclusion.
Funnily enough, the answer came to me after reading the books of Douglas Adams! Reading those funny, weird stories, I realized that the answer is all in my head.
We can believe anything we want, as long as we convince ourselves.
But, in my opinion, being an atheist means subscribing to the age old saying: " Seeing is believing"...it's as simple as that!
If you believe in god, fine...now show him/her to me!
Science is the only way with which we can explain the universe. Any thing else is just in the mind!
- Login to post comments
That is why you need faith to follow a religion. Atheists don't use faith. That want stuff that is testable and can be proved or disproved.
Indeed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
I hate that argument with a passion. Thought precedes material reality. And thought is not brain but something else, something mysterious, something supernatural...At best this is an appeal to complexity.
Happily TAG Howlers are anchored to their inflexible position and neuroscience will some day find them out.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
//Science is the only way with which we can explain the universe//
A. But science requires the uniformity of nature. How do you account for the uniformity of nature?
B. Science also requires laws of logic. How do you account for the immaterial absolute laws of logic?
If they are just chemical reactions in the brain, who is to say which laws of logic are correct? If the brain created the laws of logic does that mean there were no laws of logic BEFORE there were human minds to think them up???
Hello TAG argument, how are you today?
lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
nobody.
yuuup.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
iwbiek said:
//Nobody//..?
So everyone has their own standards of logic? You're saying there are no absolutes or at least no absolute standards of logic?
//yuuup //
Nope..........you would have had to first use/observe the laws of logic in order to think them up. Therefore they were here before there were minds to think them up. The minds of men are subject to the laws of logic not its creators.
Oh really? Then perhaps you can explain why there are dozens (hundreds?) of logical systems? Which one is the "true" one? Many geniuses have attempted to create a logical system that can prove itself within itself, so far all have failed. But I'm sure you are much smarter than all of them, so you create it. First I suggest you take a logic 101 course on the major logical systems invented to date, their uses and their limitations. There is no universal logic system, to even suggest that there is speaks of extreme ignorance.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
first of all, please format your quotes. it makes it so much easier on the reader and i really can't imagine it taking any longer than the weird way you do it. the coding is very quick and simple.
second of all, no, there are no absolutes in any meaningful, existent way. we use logic for the same reason we use mathematics: it has proved a useful (but not infallible) predictor of natural phenomena. your weird syllogism is a prime example of what happens when we follow abstractions to their logical conclusions even in the face of common sense. the jains, for example, have one of the most complex, sophisticated systems of logic on earth and one of their core doctrines is that common sense takes priority over everything else. common sense tells us there cannot be a thought without a physical brain to think it, and that's all logic is: a string of thoughts: profound, complex thoughts, yes, but thoughts nonetheless.
i will also refer you to beyond's post above, where he points out that logic is neither monolithic nor immutable. it has changed and evolved over at least 2,500 years of human history and will continue to do so. he has mentioned western logic. my area of interest are the indian systems of thought (darshanas), of which jaina is one. there are eight principles darshanas, and six of them are based on one corpus of texts (the vedas). they all have different (often widely different) approaches and starting points to logic, epistemology, and ontology (or the lack of it).
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
iwbiek you say:
// no, there are no absolutes in any meaningful, existent way.//,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Are you ABSOLUTELY sure? It seems like a COMMON SENSE question to ask does it not?
//and that's all logic is: a string of thoughts: profound, complex thoughts, yes, but thoughts nonetheless.//
Im not talking about logic. Im talking about the laws of logic. Man exists in a world governed by the laws of logic. He describes and observes them. Its what allows us to formulate thought. He does not create the laws of logic, he lives within them.
//i will also refer you to beyond's post above, where he points out that logic is neither monolithic nor immutable. it has changed and evolved over at least 2,500 years of human history and will continue to do so.//
No, imperfections in mans descriptions and observations of logic may change but the laws remain the same.
You and Beyond are attempting to make subtle changes to the initial premise. I am not talking about man made constructs of logical systems. I am asking where the laws of logic come from and how do you account for them?
Whoa! Are you really continuing this conversation one year later as if nothing had happened? This didn't get edited by an admin or something, did it?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
beyond
//Oh really? Then perhaps you can explain why there are dozens (hundreds?) of logical systems? Which one is the "true" one? Many geniuses have attempted to create a logical system that can prove itself within itself, so far all have failed//
Once again, I am not talking about mans attempts at creating logical constructs. I am talking about the laws of logic. In order for man to create these dozens(hundreds), as you say, of logical systems he would have to first think. But how can one even reason without the laws of logic?
Exactly what are these laws that are so vital that we couldn't even think without them? If they are so vital, they should be fairly easily identified right?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yes, they are easily identified (happy googling). But, if they didn't exist then any answer I give to your question would neither be right or wrong, nor would it be required to make sense. So, if you don't believe they exist then why ask the question?
Well, I'd say that answers my first question.
There always seems to be a fundamental disagreement concerning how to conceptualize "logic" with regard to TAG. Actually, I'd say there's an ontological disagreement on the level of what can be said "to exist" involved in a lot of arguments for god.
I'm going to make an assumption about your worldview here, which is that you conceptualize non-material ideas in a manner far closer to Plato's theory of forms than most of us here. Since you appear to be defending TAG, I think it's a reasonable assumption. I assume you think of logic as an "entity," obviously not one that can be scientifically observed, but which nevertheless is some "thing" unto itself since you referred to it as "immaterial absolute laws of logic." However, most atheists, intellectual ones at least, do not think of a concept such a logic "existing" in that sense, but merely being an abstraction made by humans.
Let me clarify that with a rough analogy. Let's take the concept of a 'species' in biology, comparing the difference between how a proponent of Creationism and a proponent of evolution defines the term. A Creationist believes that God created all organisms in their unique "forms" and all individual members of a species are but a flawed manifestation of that form. In other words, there is some preexisting blueprint which determines the characteristics of every species and individuals in a species may vary from each other, but cannot deviate too much from the blueprint. In contrast, a biologist would say that the population of interbreeding organisms "defines" the species i.e. all the traits that every member possess. A species is a concept to describe the population. As the population changes, so does the average individual; hence, so does the species.
So, returning to the original topic, we live in a universe. Using our senses, we can observe consistencies and patterns and make reliable predictions based on them. These abstractions are what the other posters referred to as the "laws of logic" i.e. as with the biologist, we are merely observing, then making a model based on those observations, building from the bottom up. When you ask the question, "Where did the logic "itself" come from?", the implication is that something "exists," which "imparted" "laws" to the universe, leading to a system of reality which starts at the top and works its way down. If this is required to justify TAG, then TAG, in this instance, requires one to beg the question and assume the worldview that TAG is arguing for to justify the initial claim.
The only productive way I can interpret the question is...like, "Where did the universe come from?" and/or "What determines the characteristics of this universe?" My answer to that is, obviously, I don't know, lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I asked the question because I want clarification of what laws of logic you think are universal. Many logical systems have various laws, the laws only apply within the system, none that I am aware of are universal. If they are so necessary, it should be easy for you to tell me an example of one. Or better yet link me to a source that listed specifics.
Obviously your answers aren't required to make sense, because your answers don't make sense.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I love the skeptics here rightfully saying they need something testable but throw a tantrum over the word "poison" when it is merely saying you don't leave a campfire unattended.
Lets pretend is what faith is and that pretending if it isn't questioned allowing stupidity to spread. There is no way to stop the gap filling in human's flawed perceptions, but just like a wild fire there are ways to contain it and manage it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Vastet, can we please put a lid on this bullshit of interrupting every fucking thread with this nonsense?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Vastet, can we please put a lid on this bullshit of interrupting every fucking thread with this nonsense?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
i'm not going to get into semantic games. if absolutes exist, all you have to do is produce one and BOOM, debate closed. even the physical laws of the universe did not exist at one time and probably that will be the case again eventually.
again, semantics. whether you want to call it "logic" or the "laws of logic," you're still talking about an abstract concept that doesn't have as much reality as a peanut. as agehananda bharati used to say, be so kind as to state your axioms. if your axioms are "absolutes exist, therefore god must exist because only god could create absolutes," then come out and say it. then we can part ways amicably, because your axioms are different from mine and for that there's no remedy.
also, as I said almost 2 years ago, please be so kind as to format your quotes as the rest of us do. i almost missed several things you wrote because i thought i was still scanning part of the original quotation.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I guess I'll have to wait another year.
Lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Not really. People do whatever feels right. We believe what we want to believe to make ourselves feel better.
Most athesits on this site use faith to form their political views based upon whatever makes them feel good about themselves. They dont' want their beliefs tested or disproven.
The bottom line is we'd 'believe in God if it made us feel better. Rationality is not a motivator in and of itself, that is why there is so much irrationality.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I disagree. People take the path of most fulfillment. As for religion, plenty of people follow religions because they are forced to or haven't been exposed to another option. Feeling better has nothing to do with it, but maybe security would be a better choice of words?
I can't speak for the others about their political views, but when it comes to me I don't use faith. If I vote for a leader I do have expectations that they will perform to a certain level however I don't blindly follow them or believe in their ability. Faith requires ignorance. It requires that you not question or challenge your own belief. I for one challenge myself every day.
If I'd seen it sooner...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
doesn't matter. i've just had it up to here with him making every thread about his bullshit. he literally did not add one goddamn thing to this discussion.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
No no no no, according to some here it isn't just in the mind, it has value. I agree with you 100% though. Don't have to convince me.
So glad we clung to belief in Apollo. So glad we still allow people to read holy books and justify slavery, we got here because of those things. Cant give up bad claims because is always bad.
I'd love to get a blowjob from Angelina Jolie, but no amount of believing or comfort or wishful thinking will make that a reality, so guess I will have to accept that fantasy as being stuck in my head.
Yep, god claims are a result of gap filling and human ignorance and really is just all in their head.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yea ok.........People like believing their books make them chosen. People like believing girls shouldn't get educations. So glad we never challenge those absurdities.
Who the fuck needs telescopes when we have fantsy, damned science, glad you cant type your response on a product of science, that would suck.
Now someone necroposted in a thread started in 13. I still agree with the OP. Oversight on my part as to the date of the OP.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are responding to a post written in 2013 by an individual not seen in quite some time. Just how stupid are you?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I didn't say anything because I wanted to see how far he would carry the conversation with out the other user.
Hi Butterbattle,
Thanks for the comment, but respectfully I see major problems with your post. Before I get to that let me just say I am not familiar with the TAG argument. Apparently there are similarities. I guess I shall have to read up on it.
You say:
// When you ask the question, "Where did the logic "itself" come from?", //
To be accurate, I never made this statement. I have never asked where logic comes from. Again, logical constructs come from the minds of men, but these logical constructs could not have been formed in the minds of men without certain preconditions of intelligibility. One among these are the Laws of logic (not logical constructs, or the use of logic itself). Another among these is the Uniformity of Nature. Men did not create these "laws" he observed them and or the evidence of them. Without them you cannot have any degree of validation of said senses. They are the pre conditions of thought. Try thinking of something that has never been observed. Can you think of or show me a color that has never existed before? (im not talking about using combinations of already existing colors)
// Using our senses, we can observe consistencies and patterns and make reliable predictions based on them. These abstractions are what the other posters referred to as the "laws of logic" // Surely you are not saying that because we observe patterns that we created those patterns. There is a difference between giving an observation of a pattern a name and actually creating the pattern itself. One of the Laws of Logic is the law of non-contradiction. We can observe the pattern of this law, we can even give this law a name, but we did not create the pattern itself. So again, how do you account for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature? Simply saying you observed them and gave them a name is not an explanation.
// the implication is that something "exists," which "imparted" "laws" to the universe, leading to a system of reality which starts at the top and works its way down. If this is required to justify TAG, then TAG, in this instance, requires one to beg the question and assume the worldview that TAG is arguing for to justify the initial claim.//
Not all world views require an infinite regression, but it is absolutely true that all world views require and ultimate standard to achieve some measure of validity. Furthermore not all circular arguments are fallacious.
//The only productive way I can interpret the question is...like, "Where did the universe come from?" and/or "What determines the characteristics of this universe?" My answer to that is, obviously, I don't know, lol. // Indeed! Can you know anything for certain?
//i'm not going to get into semantic games. if absolutes exist, all you have to do is produce one and BOOM, debate closed. even the physical laws of the universe did not exist at one time and probably that will be the case again eventually.//
No game. I was merely pointing out that your statement was absolute. So is this one " the physical laws of the universe did not exist " Statements can be absolutes. But if that is not enough for you "truth" is absolute. There are many absolutes. In fact what isn't absolute? BOOM.
//you're still talking about an abstract concept that doesn't have as much reality as a peanut//
Exactly the point!!! The laws of logic are immaterial and yet they exist. They are ,along with the uniformity of nature, the preconditions of knowledge. Without them we could not formulate a coherent thought. Your senses and your observations alone, and or without these preconditions, are not enough to bring validity to thought as there is no certain point of reference. You need additional ingredients.
//agehananda bharati used to say, be so kind as to state your axioms//
My presupposition is this: That without these immaterial abstracts realty as we know it could not exist and that you would have no certainty of knowledge. Furthermore, in order to prove me wrong you would have to use them.
//Not really. People do whatever feels right. We believe what we want to believe to make ourselves feel better.
Most athesits on this site use faith to form their political views based upon whatever makes them feel good about themselves. They dont' want their beliefs tested or disproven.
The bottom line is we'd 'believe in God if it made us feel better. Rationality is not a motivator in and of itself, that is why there is so much irrationality//
I find this observation interesting, honest , and refreshing. I think there is a lot of truth to it. I'm not up on my definitions but isn't atheism a belief. Is it possible to disprove God?
one does not prove or disprove axioms. one of my axioms is that we do not have certainty of knowledge, ever. any logical "laws" we come up with are a collective fumbling in the dark.
and seriously, dude, why can't you format your quotes? you don't even have to encode. there's a button for "quote" at the bottom
of each person's post, right next to "reply." then you can just trim down the quoted text to pinpoint what you want to address. the only time you need to actually use the code is when you want to separate points and address them individually. then it's as simple as starting with [ quote = person's name ] and ending with [ / quote ] (without all the spaces of course). observe:
now i'm responding.
isn't that so much tidier and easier to read? and it's not like almost every internet forum doesn't use HTML...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
This website looks completely different than most mom and pop webites as far as button names and the format. Took me a long time to get the HTML code down. And back when I first got online took me a while to learn the quote function itself for lots of websites. Still cant figure out how to embed video since Brian updated the website.
This is not your classroom, this is a website not owned by you. While the protocal does help one read other's posts you seriously are one to talk.
And back to your BS about axioms, labs and scientific method are a bit beyond mere philosophy, and you enable the BS of shifting the burdon of proof when you say "you cant prove or disprove".
Scientific facts don't have to be called "axioms". They are called FACTS and LAWS. One doesn't prove or disprove unicorns either. And sriously dude, not hard to capitialize the first letter of your sentances.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
and here comes the fucking sniping again. children shouldn't interrupt adults who are having a conversation. it irritates the adults and embarrasses the child.
please don't try to join in a philosophical discussion. a., it's painfully obvious you are an illiterate in the area and, b., as i recall you hold the discipline in contempt, so why waste your time trying (and failing) to bandy about its terms?
wakawaka and i are not discussing matters of scientific fact here. we are discussing whether or not the "laws of logic," as he puts it, can be said to exist in any independent way. "scientific facts" are never called "axioms," except perhaps by you just now, because "scientific facts" stand or fall by observation. axiomatic principles do not. science pretty much only works from one axiom, that of empiricism, i.e. that our five senses are our most reliable observers of reality and that this reality has a separate existence from the observer. other than this, science does not deal with axioms.
no one is shifting the burden of proof here, because at this stage of the discussion no one is trying to prove anything.
so, to sum up, since i'm sure your tiny brain has already compelled you to skip to the end by now, we are not having a scientific discussion. the principles of science have absolutely no bearing on anything we're saying here. so for you to bring them up demonstrates your appalling and willful ignorance for the 198,746,899th time. you must be proud of yourself. stupidity like yours takes real dedication.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Oh grow up you sound like the Pope when you get picked on. Yes I am going to snipe you because you have acted since "posinongate" and "Bobgate" like petulent child when you couldn't play proffesor with me.
Excuse me, but I will post in response to whatever post I like.
Now for the ADD aflicted, you merely are playing word games. In modern science we don't need the word "axiom" when we have established METHOD, and established FACT and LAW. Just like your word game with "detractor".
Science does not allow for "cant prove or disprove" FOR ANY FUCKING THING. You play into apologists hands and allow them to shift the burdon of proof.
"You cant disprove God"
"You cant disprove Allah"
"You cant disprove Vishnu"
"You cant disprove Yahweh"
The fans of those gods consider them "axioms" you dumbuck! Doesn't matter how you view the word they will like it or not. So you go with METHOD, instead of alowing them to play word games to shift the burdon. Presuposition, axiom, still mean assuming a position at a starting point.
Science doen't simply assert either with those mere words. It goes way beyond that. The best way we have to determine the nature of reality is to put the burdon of proof on the one making the claim. In science you test and falsify, THEN you get it peer reviewed. You don't call something an "axiom" then expect the peer reviewers to do your homework for you BEFORE you set up your own testing and falsification and control groups.
"You cant disprove" is bullshit.
The flow of method works like this.
Proir confirmed and ESTABLISHED TESTED DATA=pluged into established formula=projected outcome
Not........"Prove it isnt true" as the starting point because anyone who does that can make up anything and call it an "axiom" and in reality that is called a NAKED ASSERTION.
Philosophy is like using a horse and buggy in an age of hybrid carsWe have moved way beyond mental masterbation and you don't fucking understand word games ultimatly do not constitutue a lab.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
my god, your brain isn't worth the oxygen that sustains it. a person just cannot dialogue with utter stupidity.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
The only one here stupid is you.
"You cant prove or disprove" IS BULLSHIT. PERIOD.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim.
Review in science is only done AFTER the scientist sets up their hypothesis and tests it, it is NOT true by default. They do not set up their hypothesis with the starting point "prove it isn't true".
You make a claim, the burden is on you.
Established prior data=established formula=projected outcome THEN peir review.
NOT
"Prove it isn't true" as a starting point.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
FYI, waka has had years to learn how to use the quote function. If someone wants to blast him for not using it they are quite welcome to do so. Try pulling your head out of your ass once in awhile.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
no, it's not bullshit when it comes to axioms. an axiom or postulate, by definition, cannot be proved or disproved. it is only accepted or denied. an axiom is not a claim, an axiom is not a hypothesis. no one here is talking about hypotheses except you. go read a fucking book. i'm assuming you're functionally literate since you write so much garbage. then again, you could be dictating.
and i don't need an education on the scientific method. i guarantee i know more about it than you, like everything else except washing dishes and feeling sorry for myself.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
neither in premodern science. science has never dealt with axioms. problem is, you're the only person here talking about science.
of course i don't. because there's no such thing as "peer review" in philosophy. because it's not science. it's not less or greater than science--it just isn't science. there's no such thing as testing, falsification, or control groups in philosophy either. again, because it's not science. it's a totally different fucking animal. just like english isn't social studies.
an axiom is a postulate. a naked assertion is a logical fallacy that only applies to falsifiable statements. falsifiability belongs to science, not to philosophy. wakawaka and i are have a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. deal.
that's literally one of the worst analogies i've ever heard, because science and philosophy are TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE DISCIPLINES WITH TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSES. THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING. science's purpose is to explain the empirical universe. philosophy hasn't been concerned with explaining the empirical universe since at least the renaissance, when both philosophy and science began to emerge as separate disciplines from theology in the universities.
philosophy's purpose is to explain what we can and cannot do with language and logic. all those logical terms you love misusing so much? "burden of proof," etc.? yeah, you have analytical philosophy to thank for those, not science. HISTORICAL FACT.
you're welcome for the lesson. i only wish you'd actually incorporate it.
translation: "quit usin' 'em big words! ah don' unnerstan 'em! ah need ta see test tubes an' bottles fulla fizzy water afore ah'll b'lieve it!
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Sigh...looks like I'm still sort of talking past you. I had hoped that that my analogy with evolution and the implicit reference to Plato's forms would've been sufficient.
Hmmm, I find that rather odd since you are, effectively, using and defending TAG in this thread. But, whether you think you are or not isn't that important compared to the actual content I suppose.
As an aside, often when I write "you," I mean that as a general "you," not "you" specifically, almost like if I was to say "one." E.g. "When one asks the question..." I probably use them interchangeably more than I should, so I apologize if that's confusing.
Nevertheless, what you wrote here, by my interpretation, seems to implicitly make that statement.
Specifically, when you say, "One among these are the Laws of logic," within context, that, to me, was equivalent to asking "Where did the logic "itself" come from?", especially when you capitalize "Laws," assuming that was intentional.
Going off scientific naturalism, I can only go as far as to interpret the patterns of this universe and tailor my actions based on those patterns. I can say that they are characteristics of this universe. I can even say that they might be determined by some unknown variables. But, I cannot refer to those patterns as "laws" in an ontologically significant way (hope that makes sense) because then you are asserting an additional entity that is not justified or necessary, only as a metaphor.
Let me try another example. Think of how snowflakes are made. I can marvel at the patterns in individual snowflakes and study what causes their patterns, but it's invalid to say that there are "laws of snowflakes" in the philosophical sense, which govern their formation, because there aren't any, unless we are referencing the natural process of water vapor depositing onto hygroscopic nuclei causing a chain reaction. A "law" defined in that way would probably be a "law of science," which has a precise definition and not the same type of "law" that you are implying.
Again, humans derive their "laws" from nature. You are implying "laws" that determine nature. These are two different things, as you explained in some depth yourself. The only answer I can give you after reaching this point is that I can't assume the existence of your "laws." There aren't any. There is simply what we observe. And if I can't observe your "laws," then they are superfluous." I cannot explain the logical uniformity of universe, but that doesn't require immaterial laws working like puppeteers any more than snowflakes requires snowflake laws. They both have some cause, so if, when you say "law," law is equivalent to cause, that's fine. However, you don't simply mean some cause. Per the TAG argument, you seem to be implying something supernatural, something along the lines of Plato's forms. By scientific naturalism and Occam's Razor, I can't agree with that. You have to prove it exists.
No, but that line of argument seems rather counter-productive to justifying TAG. That seems to prove that knowledge requires observation, which is the naturalist's "assumption." Ergo, my functioning brain and my observations of the world validate my thoughts and my senses. Are you asserting that what I am observing requires "laws" for its existence? Or are you asserting that I require "laws" in order to observe things? Why is this a requirement?
I am not. Reality already existed. We are merely observing reality. However, "patterns" are something we, and some other animals, grant 'meaning' to. E.g. using my snowflake analogy, the snowflake already existed of course, but we identify characteristics of the snowflake and call those patterns.
Again, I don't think the "laws of logic" have any existence beyond an abstraction, so the explanation of them would be the uniformity of nature itself.
As for the uniformity of nature itself, I don't have an explanation, as implied when I wrote:
A scientifically sound explanation of that would require us to have an exhaustive understanding of the origin of the universe, which we are........not close to getting yet, lol.
This doesn't make any supernatural explanation more valid, as I explained in my response to your second quote. Every assertion still needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
Heh.
I believe I go much further down the rabbit hole of solipsism than most people are willing to go. I suppose I can go as far as to say, "I think. Therefore, I exist." After that, I rely on my observations of the world and my reasoning. None of it's for "certain," in the sense you're using; it's just pragmatism.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Heeeyyy. I'm talking about science. Brian seems to be on a different topic entirely, but I am indeed talking about the scientific process.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
i stand corrected. still, my specific exchange with wakawaka has nothing to do with science but brian seems to really want to make it about that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
a psychological fact. In the biblical sense the physical is not the person, but rather "the mental" (or mental presence) is the person . The book seperates the two and considers them to each be it's own catagory. In the interpretation of the Smurfs (Old Seers) it is the mental (person) that is primary, and the physical is secondary, even tho the physical was formed first (before the mental) That means that emphasis is placed on the spiritual as primary, and the body is secondary. This means that the regard for the "person" (and personages of all others) rates to be higher then the regard of body. If one says - it's all a matter of mind, accorcing to the book that would be correct. If one that professes to be Christian places more regard to the physical, that same is not a Christain, as Christianity is about "Person" not "Physical". It's about "what" manner of person one is and what one's relationship values toward others are based in/on. (this is if I understand the Psycho Smurfs correctly)
God is not a him or her necessarily. In the Old Seer interpretasion God is anything and everything that governs. God can be circumstance(s) or force in one's life that are governered by another person. If the person governing has a female body then God then in that context God is a "her" in the things that a "Her" governs on's life. Same so-in the case of a "him". All that govers is God. It's very simple. A large boulder in your path governs that you have to go around it----in this case----the boulder is "God". Fight the boulder and you will experience the hand of God. It is better to go around then try to go through.
The boulder dictates the circumstance.
Be introduced to the biblical Gad--as interpreted by the Old Seers.
Be aware that a him or her governing can govern no different or better the other. So God remains the "forces" that are in play but Him or Her need not be taken into account=----except for the difference in hormones. When govered by a him or her then one is being governed by a "person", the body is merely the medium.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
In the scientific interpretation there is no divide between the physical and the mental. They are the same thing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Here is one example.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html