PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Hi cj! I'm sorry for not responding to you, I was pretty focused on Ktulu. I did read the answer you gave on the other forum, but I still dont understand some things. I've touched on them briefly with Ktulu.
You say that logic is not unchanging, yet the scientific method, which is based on logical inferences, is not. I don't see how you can have one without the other. Logic may not have given me water, but the pipes were certainly designed on a logical set of inferences - this pipe must lead to the next one, this one must be split in order to supply these rooms, etc. Logically, certain components are necessary in this computer. You cannot have a steel wire in place of a copper one and expect to have the same power flowing through. Logic, coupled with scientific exploration, creates technology and innovations. The two are inseparable.
Logic is unchanging, but our understanding and exploration of it are changing and relative. This is true of science as well.
And I'm sorry for David Hume, for his quote must then, according to his definition, be put to flames.
Why are you insistent on a who being the cause? If you can accept that a hurricane does not need an ocean god to cause or allow it why would the universe or evolution need a who either?
I'll tell you why, not that you will accept it. "Gods/deities/super natural" are merely the human projections(anthropomorphism) of human qualities on the world around them. They are "Dawkins moth" in the God Delusion, which I would recommend you read, along with "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger.
Xenophanes "If horses had gods, they would look like horses".
The unknowns of what came before the big bang science is working on, but whatever it is does not need a cognition anymore than a hurricane can think or needs to be invented.
Claims of non material beings are nothing but gap answers. They always have been. It was the case when the Egyptians looked up at the sun and threw in the gap that it was a thinking god. It is the same when Hindus or Muslims or you do it. Humans have always made up gods and you are no different.
Cognition is a emergent property of evolution, it is not magical and does not need a god to occur.
"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
Hm, let me sort the double negatives a little - the rules of logic do change, and new methods of applying logic are developed. I recently had a class on discrete logic for computer science majors. We studied various ways of determining if logical statements were verifiable. And there are new methods and different means of analysis that were not available to Aristotle or Aquinas or Hume. Please do spend some time on the Stanford web site.
The scientific method has been pretty stable for - I said over 100 years, but it is probably closer to 50. Anyway, my point was that science is a process, not a particular theory. Theories change and that is a good thing. Without those changes, we would still be hunting with fire hardened spears.
The examples you gave of pipes and wires is not logical - the principles behind pipes and wires are scientific and pragmatic. Water flows downhill because of gravity. Logic has nothing to do with this. If you want water to go uphill, you must pressurize it. Logic has nothing to do with this. Copper wire conducts electricity better than steel because of the inherent properties of copper, logic has nothing to do with this.
Come to think of it, I answered a similar question in an essay last term -
Critical thinking is NOT logic, it is the application of logic to one's own thinking. Logic is one of a set of tools you may use to evaluate scientific hypothesis. They are separable because you can apply the scientific method without using logic. Though you are correct in that if you were to do that your experimental results would likely be useless.
And I am reasonably certain Hume was aware of the irony.
FYI - the regulars on the board know, you may as well know, too. I really am an older woman, like my avatar, Maxine. I am 61, have been unemployed for years, have a BS in Systems Engineering, have returned to school at first majoring in Computer Science. I have over 20 experience as IT support. I decided I truly hate IT support, and have changed my major to psychology with some philosophy thrown in. I am only interested in philosophy from the view point of "why people believe weird things" and how to prevent that in myself. I am interested in social psychology and how we are influenced by our social interactions - leading to believing in weird things because everyone else seems to, so it must be right. Logical fallacies - that we are all prone to, including me and my professors - have gotten humans in some heck of messes at one time or another.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
@Defender
Please define your concept of God. This was requested at the beginning, and until you do so, the lack of definition is harming the debate.
Also, I would like you to respond to the question of why, even if your 1st argument was true, would you have any reason to believe in a specific God or God conccept? The more specific about a God you get the more logical problems crop up.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I would have to agree. Thus far, the thread has touched upon the premise of first cause and such, but I believe that Defender's definition of god is supposed to come in a later thread.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Science is a way to explain nature by using critical thinking. It is a pragmatic way of understanding reality. Logic is an idealized system that humans have agreed upon. We need to define ABSOLUTE in this context.
"Oxford Dictionary Definition: Absolute
noun
Philosophy
a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things."
Logic exists because humans created such a system, and did not exist before humans, and will not exist after humans. It is then relative to an observer (humans), therefore it is not absolute, but subjective.
Think of it this way, let's assume that an alien spontaneously develops intelligence, it has no concept of logic or science and sees one round rock roll down a hill. He attempt to explain what he/she/it is seeing, and that my friend is science. He may eventually develop systems such as mathematics, logic and other system that are complementary and may be as ours. For example he may have 10 fingers and design a system where 2+2=4 (base 10) or he may have 3 appendages and 2+2=11 (base 3). Do you understand the difference and the subjectivity of such systems?
I didn't say it was misunderstood, I said it was poorly understood. Meaning that us, as humans, know fundamentally very little about time. We don't know why the arrow of time is the way it is, we can only define it as a relative sequence of events. Look up time in wikipedia when you have a chance, it's a good starting point. The more you think about it, the more you realize how poor our understanding is. I never said I don't believe in logic's ability, I just have a realistic view of what logic is, and more importantly, what it is not. We use logic to describe reality within a PRE-SET subjective system. We cannot use logic to create things into existence, or prove things into existence. Logic deals with concepts, it has nothing to do with reality.
I just meant that we're not at the that point YET. Of course my beliefs matter, but we're at the point where we're challenging your beliefs. You haven't asked me what mine are, and the only reason I volunteered quantum foam is to make a point, not necessarily because I believe that to be the answer, 100%.
Don't get discouraged , I respect the fact that you your attempting rational discussion. If I come across as confrontational, it is only because I dislike extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof. I dislike religion because it is irrational. I LOVE inquiry, on the other hand.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Your arguments support my earlier suggestion. We tend to disagree with the idea that at the point empiricism runs out of puff - pre-bang or on the other side of the Hubble Constant - empiricism stops working entirely and philosophy takes flight. You'll need to work hard to convince me that the hypotheses of neo-Platonism do not ultimately make objective claims about the nature of the fundamentals of the universe and thus need to be supported by objective proofs. Rather than having closed minds Defender, we generally have an aversion to assertions that cannot be supported by testable explanations. To wit, prove to us that nothing has ever existed...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
that first cause and pre-bang are compelling mysteries but it's impossible to prove that they were formed by an undefined god, with undefinable powers on the basis of an undefinable 'supernatural' template that somehow is able to influence the physics of the material universe in an undefined way. It's not as if all of us don't wrestle with same questions you struggle with Defender, it's just that at the point coherent data stops being available to us we maintain that all further propositions are unsupported hypotheses. We grant primacy to a system of knowing that does not claim ownership of ultimate knowledge and is always open to being re-made on the basis of new data.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
so far so kalam.
I think we can all agree that we prefer working within a logical framework, so let's underscore that and move on. The problem you have still to sort out, Defender is that even if we accept your first cause argument, you havent defined what that first cause is. If you say god, then the next thing you have to do is relate that to your religion, otherwise we might all just swap your First cause god with 'physics'. I'd like to move on to this stage of the discussion if that's ok.. Plenty of threads on The cosmological argument and kalam already. Very interested to hear how you present this, thanks.One other thing, I don't believe the "Big Bang" is scientific fact but on the edge of human knowledge. It is based on a few facts such as the expanding universe, but not only is it a singularity, foreign to anything we see today, but also we are limited by the speed of light to only see so far back in time. It was only 100 years ago we realized that there were other galaxies beyond our own. We like the ancients have still have a limited view. They could see the dome above us. With scientific advancements we can only see things that have reached us by the speed of light. It is possible we are still just looking at a dome but only out just so far. I think the "Big Bang" isn't solid enough to place lots of confidence in it or try to finagle it into a proof for God.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
My gut tells me not to rush this. Why press the debate? If the foundation is not solid then defining a god becomes unnecessary. As you know the leap from "there is a god" to "this is THE god" is a very large gap. There are a number of other theist who you can argue with on that.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Hey, you guys are the main ones taking part in this, so handle it however you want. I am just curious as to Defender's more specific beliefs.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I just want to be clear on this. I use logic in everything that i do, I just want to make sure that Defender is not a believer simply because logic tells him to believe. In other words, logic would also shred the argument to pieces. Logic, like all other man designed systems, is tautological. If you define something as being possible within a system, and then use the system's predefined laws to prove it, one shouldn't be surprised of the outcome. Consider mathematics. You have a base 10 system telling you that 2+2=4. It would seem as an absolute until you consider what you are actually saying. You are saying that given a base of 10 symbols 0-9. when putting two and two together you get four. The same could not be said for a base 3. 4 doesn't exist in base 3. It goes from 0-2. 2+2=11 (read as 1 and 1, meaning one 3 and one 1).
Point is, a system can only prove that within it's own frame of reference something is true. All systems are subjective because they are man made constructs. Simply because a system produces a certain truth, it does nothing to reality. Proving that god is possible logically, doesn't mean that god exists.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It's easy to forget from our perspective that the systems, templates and laws we consider inviolate universal decrees are expressions of human brains. Still, like TJ I wouldn't mind to get a bit more of a feel for the nature of Defender's theism.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hey,
I would love to. The absolute maxim that is said there is no absolutes, absolutely
Do you deny your own motto? Or are there probably no absolutes all of a sudden?
----------------
Some content in this post was deleted for slinging ad hominems in the kill 'em with kindness forum, where such behaviour is not tolerated.
~Vastet
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Let's go Jean, I made a new thread, please fill in the blanks so we can continue the argument without douche-jacking this thread.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
----------------
Some content in this post was deleted for slinging ad hominems in the kill 'em with kindness forum, where such behaviour is not tolerated.
~Vastet
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I like this a lot. If we were to find an isolated culture who did have a such a unique system of counting, it's really in no way inferior, and fully capable of doing what our system does. But their system could arrive at the same conclusions by slightly different means. What this would do, though, is strengthen the legitimacy of the conclusions.
Your last point is spot on too. Proving that god is possible logically is easy. Any argument beyond that is greatly flawed. If your god is actually provable, your god would have to be detectable. If you say he's undetectable, then he is indeed unprovable. If you say he is detectable, you willingly accept the burden of proof, after which point you must concede that you can't back it up.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
This is the kill 'em with kindness forum. If you cannot post without insulting people, then don't post here at all. Jean.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Jean Chauvin .. please never leave . . .
To be honest, I could never be a Christian because I tend to think more optimistically hahaha. Like it'd be hard for me to live this life thinking so many people are going to hell. And I don't think I'd like eternal paradise. I see nothing wrong in just dying. It's far less complicated and makes you want to enjoy life here as much as you can.
Eternity wouldn't be much of an experience.