|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Evidence
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
As for abiogenesis, I suppose we could adopt the alien intelligence hypothesis, but that only pushes the problem one step further away.
The salient question to you, asked I think by George upthread, was how come you are so sure abiogenesis is impossible naturalistically here on earth?
quote:
I suppose if you want to abolish the law of contradiction from logic (and thereby abolish logic itself, along with all that depends on it, including the natural sciences), then I suppose you've got a point (although I can't imagine how I would come to that conclusion if logic has been abolished!)
Paraconsistent logic does just that and the universe doesn't explode when you use it. It also solves such problems as "This sentence is false" which pose a problem for claims that whatever logic you are using can resolve everything.
quote:
Thanks for the link to the article, which is wholly unconvincing and full of fascinating wordplay...
Edit it then, I'm sure they will welcome your expertise.
On the empiricism thing, you brought in Bertrand Russell over at W&T to support your case, where he says:
quote:
Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known [empirically]. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so.
This doesn't actually support your stronger position and you never did get to explain how you got from "If true, cannot be known to be true," to "Is false."
The point about axioms is that the laws of logic cannot themselves be proved logically in the same what that empiricism cannot be proved empirically. I also mentioned that there is not a single philosophical position that isn't vulnerable to some criticism. You seem to hold to a form of continental rationalism, holding as an unsupported axiom that there is metaphysical a priori knowledge; mixed with pre-suppositional apologetics which holds that Chistianity is the only basis for rational thought. That's not exactly a small philosophical target. (I could be wrong on that detail, though, since, as with your definition of logic, you were not forthcoming on the specifics.)
We also did a lot of arguing about Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and developments in logic in 20th century philosophy. I don't really think you got to grips with the idea of metamaths..
quote:
As far as I can see, it's a theory based entirely on bare assertions.
Anyone interested can go decide for themselves.
quote:
I see you've passed on that subject. So on we go...
If you want to revisit the category error wibble - the point at issue was whether reason is or isn't emergent or materially reducible and you responded by claiming a category error by asserting it to be not materially reducible. So that's not one but two fallacious arguments together - bare assertion and question begging, since by the claim you were assuming your conclusion.
One category Reason could be in, though, is, "Things that don't necessarily follow EE's batshit insane inferences."
quote:
Informational basis of matter... more anon
Can't wait.
quote:
(and what your co-ideologues are very quick to term "an argument from ignorance")
No, I termed it an argument from ignorance because it is.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The existence of the eternal dimension (which, by the way, has to exist, because temporal reality had to have a beginning and be caused by something above time).
The beginning was the beginning of everything. Including time.
As to the "need" for a cause, I'm unconvinced. Even if one posits divine causation, one is still left with the question of what caused god. And if one is happy with the concept of something existing without a cause, why not simply apply that to the universe itself? At least we can say we have ample evidence for the existence of the universe!
quote:
This eternal reality explains the conundrum at the heart of consciousness: the problem of the 'now'. Why is it a problem? Because 'now' is a durationless instant: an infinitesimal. But we live our whole lives in this temporal 'nothing'.
This proves that our consciousness operates in a different dimension from the one to which material cause and effect is subject. Call it the 'spiritual dimension' if you like, but let's not get hung up about a word.
This is merely philosophical conjecture, on a par with claiming that an arrow can never hit a running man. There may be some theoretical or philosophical "proof" for the notion, but that doesn't make it true in any real sense.
quote:
Of course, the materialists can have a crack at explaining this - probably by claiming that consciousness is just an informational convergence of memory and anticipation. Good luck with that. It would mean, though, that computers are conscious beings, because they have memory and can be programmed to make predictions. Doesn't quite feel right to me, that one (if I chuck away my old computer, am I committing murder?)
Of course it doesn't feel right, because it's complete crap. Consciousness (or sapience, if you prefer) is far more than merely factual recall and mathematical prediction, but that doesn't mean it's not entirely a product of (theoretically) understandable chemical and electrical interactions in our brains.
However, I'll grant you this - if we ever develop our computing technology to the point where it can replicate even half of the power and complexity of our brains then we will have to face up to the fact that we have created conscious computers that will need to be treated as living creatures. I don't consider that to be an impossibility, but we're nowhere near that good yet. And I don't expect us to be for hundreds of years, if ever.
The brain is a staggeringly complex thing, which we simply cannot comprehend in any real detail. But being incomprehensibly complex is not the same as being supernatural. All it "proves" is that in many ways we're still just cavemen ascribing anything we cannot understand to divine intervention.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EE old soup turreen, your 'coherence':
quote:
Let's put it this way, Martin old chap: it's more coherent than your perplexing attempt to make out that we don't agree concerning Fermi's Paradox.
Which we obviously don't above, let alone below. But please keep irrationally, illogically insisting that we do agree above. We disagree above because you irrationally ignore that you propose abiogenesis to be impossible as a major premiss. That is completely irrational. Null. Does not compute.
Our syllogisms - about the most primitive logical constructs - are not the same.
I leave you to formalise them on paper as you aren't capable of doing them in your head.
Why don't you work it out here for us so we can see your 'logic'.
Which worries me about you. You'd rather be wrong than happy.
quote:
(Fermi's Paradox is not a paradox, because it is actually a fallacy. A genuine paradox requires that two apparently true states co-exist in a relationship of contradiction. Unfortunately for Fermi, one of his states - abiogenesis - cannot be assumed to be true.)
Abiogenesis can easily be assumed, proposed to be [apparently] true. It has been for 2500 years by a line of greater minds even than yours.
You thinly mask your failure of logic under empty rhetoric which even I - the dullard on the bus - can expose let alone Grokesx.
What's REALLY going on mate?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm not exactly sure of the wording, but I understand that a scientific theory is formed after following a process fulfilling several conditions in order for it to be valid and that one of these is predictability. So a Theory that any God/god exists is formed after hypothesis, experiments, etc; and this just cannot be done for God, since no observations can be made to start with.
I see, so your primary assumption is that observations of God can't be made, therefore no theory of God's existence is possible. However, billions of people past and present claim not only to have experienced God but to have done so sufficiently to have made observations as to God's character. This surely challenges your primary assumption.
The fact that experience of God is not predictable doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People's actions aren't predictable, but their actual existence can certainly be tested in a predictable manner. Viz., if someone claims that John is in the building with us I can test that claim by searching the building until I find John (or not). One can, of course, in theory extend that search to the whole world should the claim merely be "John exists".
That doesn't say anything about John's personality or actions, of course. But whether there truly is a "John" is a testable proposition.
If John were invisible, but the results of John's work could be detected, there would surely be some evidence to say that John existed.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
There'd have to be some pretty clear evidence for that to be the conclusion, though. Actually watching something move while John was moving it, for example, or even touching/hearing/smelling John while he's beside me.
Absent such evidence, it's far more likely that someone else is doing the work and claiming it was John in order to serve their own ends.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If John were invisible, but the results of John's work could be detected, there would surely be some evidence to say that John existed.
Yes. My Dad no longer exists but there is lots of fabulous woodwork, model trains, slides and sermons/articles which show that he Did. He also built a wooden spire for one of his Churches which is there for all to see.
But people will only know John (his name ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) existed while those who remember who made those things are around.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
On the empiricism thing, you brought in Bertrand Russell over at W&T to support your case, where he says:
quote:
Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known [empirically]. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so.
This doesn't actually support your stronger position and you never did get to explain how you got from "If true, cannot be known to be true," to "Is false."
You're right in saying that Russell's comment does not support my position, but then again you are simply offering an argument from authority. What he is saying, of course, is that a self-refuting proposition could be true but cannot be known to be true. Therefore any belief in empiricism must be an act of 'faith' (i.e. the kind of faith defined as bypassing reason - a form of faith that could justly be described as 'religious' or quasi-religious). If you ask me to humbly submit to Russell, because of his stature in intellectual history, even though his words imply a faith response to a particular theory, then I could just as easily ask you to submit to the utterances of the Pope (although I am not actually a Catholic, but I hope you get the point!). Sauce for the goose etc...
I have certainly likened naturalism to a kind of faith in empiricism (and the philosophy of naturalism certainly appeals to empirical evidence, and demands empirical evidence of non-naturalists).
As for whether a self-refuting proposition must be false, well, you can appeal to paraconsistent logic, but on what basis? Assertion or argument?
Classical logic certainly helps me to draw a particular conclusion if a self-refuting statement can be true, as the following disjunctive syllogism shows following a contradiction (ex falso quodlibet):
1. P = All knowledge comes via sense perception.
2. Not-P = Not all knowledge comes via sense perception (because this idea itself does not come via sense perception).
3. By the method of disjunctive addition we can construct the following true statement, by using P for this function:
P or (Grokesx spouts insane bat excrement)
4. We can then apply Not-P to this statement, which is a denial of P, though not a refutation, because both P and Not-P are deemed to be true (thus the statement in step 3 of this disjunctive syllogism remains true). Not-P has the particular function of drawing the conclusion from the statement in step 3:
If Not-P then Grokesx spouts insane bat excrement
5. Therefore Grokesx spouts insane bat excrement.
So I guess you will have to make a plea to paraconsistent logic if you wish to salvage your reputation, because as my syllogism has shown by the well established principle of explosion, a self-refuting statement proves that your utterances are well not quite coherent!
So, yes, believe a self-contradiction to be true if you like, but "from a contradiction everything follows".
Perhaps 'paraconsistent logic' is a polysyllabic variant of the word 'faith'?
By the way, if you wish to appeal to the liar paradox, forget it. The simplest form of this paradox is, as you have quoted "this sentence is false". This statement is actually a category error fallacy, because 'sentence' in this context is not defined. Therefore it merely functions as a placeholder. It's a bit like saying "this box is empty" - but with the definition of 'box' as not including the space in the box, but merely the material from which the box is made, and 'empty' denoting the condition of the space in the box (not the space between atoms and particles in the material). It's a category error. 'False' is an adjective describing content of a sentence, not merely the status of the placeholder itself.
Another example is the 'barber paradox': "In a village, the barber shaves all men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?" Again, this is based on a false definition, because the term 'barber' implies a role of service to other people. Therefore there is no paradox. If the barber shaves himself he is no longer acting as a barber.
Do keep up, Grokesx.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Any chance of a cumulative poll on the rhetoric here?
Grokesx 1 EE 0
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Cool it, or take it to hell guys.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ma'am. My unreserved apologies, sorry EtymologicalEvangelical.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
So I guess you will have to make a plea to paraconsistent logic if you wish to salvage your reputation
I have no reputation to salvage other than in my head.
quote:
As for whether a self-refuting proposition must be false, well, you can appeal to paraconsistent logic, but on what basis? Assertion or argument?
On the same basis you would plump for classical logic, I suppose. Logics are just bunches of rules, some more useful than others. There's nothing in the nature of the universe that says one bunch of rules initially developed by some beardy Greeks a couple of millennia ago are superior to a different bunch that began a hundred years ago.
Anyway, for a less highly charged discussion, good old Stanford has an entry.
I recall you were the one who used Russell as an argument from authority, presumably on the grounds that such an argument is not necessarily false when the person in question actually is an authority on the subject in hand, and, more importantly, that his statement seemed to support you at the time. I was just following suit. So, some bloke on the internet on one hand, one of the most important logicians of the twentieth century on the other; subject matter, logic. Bertie it is.
But hold on. There is a way back for you with the help of classical logic and your old favourite, the principle of explosion. A fascinating aspect of that principle is that if two incoherent premises are true, then any inference is valid. The article above gives an example of inconsistent premises in a non trivial theory, and I reckon wave/particle duality does the job as well. So, premise 1:The fundamental entities,electrons, are waves, premise 2: The fundamental entities, electrons, are particles. This is clearly incoherent, but, unfortunately for beardy Greeks, also true. But it is good news for you, because now, any inference you choose to make is also true. So, suddenly by the nature of classical logic, you are the most important logician ever. Admit it, you always suspected as much.
As for the liar paradox, well, I've seen a few possible resolutions, but I'm not sure the argument from I don't know what a sentence is, is one of them. And Godel modified it a bit into, "This sentence is not provable" and used it to develop his First Incompleteness Theorem. Still, as the most important logician ever, you'll no doubt disprove that one pretty soon.
The barber paradox is more tightly defined than you think: "The barber is a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves."
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So to suggest that our entire rationality is merely abstract (and, not being somehow 'real', is therefore also subjective) and that it merely derives from the data of the external world, is rather strange, considering that the only means by which we can even believe in the external world at all is through this rationality. There is thus a horrible circularity (of the self-refuting kind) in this sort of strong empiricism.
No, pragmatic truth overcomes that objection, too. You're right that "I think, therefore I am" is more certain than any statement about the real world. However, it seems clear to me that we're more likely to achieve useful results by assuming that our sense-data tells us something about the world, than by assuming it doesn't.
quote:
Isn't it interesting that you quote my comment completely out of context to give the impression that it stands alone without any supporting argument? How honest of you!
I was referring to the fact that half your posts on this thread are ornamented with little comments like "how breathtakingly naïve", "bye bye science", and so on. It's annoying and unnecessary. But maybe I overreacted.
quote:
But usefulness is not the same as truth.
It would be more correct to say that a pragmatic concept of truth is not the same as a classical, correspondence theory of truth.
My position is that:
a. Truth in the classical sense is both unobtainable and inexpressible. The best you can hope for is a good enough approximation to the truth. But good enough is a pragmatic formulation.
b. Any search for truth, even classical truth, requires you to make assumptions for which you can't provide evidence, but which are pragmatically necessary. For example, that the world isn't a delusion caused by little demons, or that physical laws that were observed in the past will continue to be valid into the future.
c. It is hard to find examples of statements that are true in a classical sense but false in a pragmatic sense, which suggests that there isn't really such a gulf between pragmatic and classical truth after all.
quote:
Formal logic will help us interpret reality correctly by weeding out fallacies and falsifying erroneous hypotheses. The law of contradiction can enable us to infer alternatives to falsified propositions. This method can certainly flag up what is real, or is very likely to be real, even if we may not have direct apprehension of it.
That seems to me more a description of the scientific method than of formal logic. Formal logic requires a closed system that science (in our current state of knowledge) can't provide, because we don't know what other variables are out there.
Yes, both the scientific method and classical logic assume the law of non-contradiction. But AFAICS the scientific method assumes non-contradiction on pragmatic grounds, whereas logic doesn't have to assume non-contradiction at all: as Grokesx points out, there is such a thing as paraconsistent logic.
Pragmatically speaking (again), normal logic has proved more useful than paraconsistent logic. However, interestingly, the justification for paraconsistent logic is, AIUI, that in real life people often have to make decisions on the basis of contradictory information with no means of resolving the contradiction, and the fact that we aren't completely paralysed would suggest that there is in fact a way to do this.
quote:
Furthermore, propositions which could be dismissed as tautologies do add to our knowledge. For example, 12 x 8 = 96 is a tautology, but only to someone who knows his 12 or 8 times table. But it also provides information for someone learning to multiply. The logical proofs of pure mathematics could be viewed as tautologies to a mind complex enough to grasp the connections immediately.
But that's simply saying that logic is a tool to overcome the limits of our rationality. Which is an argument from usefulness.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I see, so your primary assumption is that observations of God can't be made, therefore no theory of God's existence is possible.
Any number of conjectures can be made and suggestions made as to how they could be easily verified and independently repeatable. There isn't one that stands up to scrutiny, because no god has ever been seen, or touched or heard - except within a person's imagination, when it is of course the person providing the thoughts.
quote:
However, billions of people past and present claim not only to have experienced God but to have done so sufficiently to have made observations as to God's character.
The number of people saying they have seen/heard/etc something does not make it a reality. The only reality is that human brains can think all of it.
quote:
This surely challenges your primary assumption.
No I don't think so.
quote:
The fact that experience of God is not predictable doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence.
It does not negate the vanishingly small possibility, but history shows there is no fact upon which to place confidence that there is such a thing, which is why RD for instance says that we should be agnostic. Unfortunately, this is often taken as being a 50/50 position.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I see, so your primary assumption is that observations of God can't be made, therefore no theory of God's existence is possible. However, billions of people past and present claim not only to have experienced God but to have done so sufficiently to have made observations as to God's character. This surely challenges your primary assumption.
The fact that experience of God is not predictable doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence.
The "billions of people" part of this argument is very very weak. Billions and billions, or at least millions have believed all sorts of incorrect things, such as spontaneous generation of disease from dirt, in another era that washing was unhealthy, in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, creationism, that some human races were genetically superior to others, in the origin of shroud of Turin as Jesus' burial cloth, that the queen bee was a king bee etc. None of which is factual.
Evidence of this sort is not a matter for voting. Juries are irrelevant, lawyers and judges have never dealt with fact except as an argument and opinion. Ideas which can be destroyed by the truth should be. The truth is something else.
God? There is no evidence anyone can present that will sway the truth. The point about God is that it is about a narrative, a story. At the moment, the science story devoid of God is a better narrative than the continuing adherence to ideas formed by uneducated middle eastern nomads entertaining themselves around campfires of camel dung. And that's the problem and fault of religion - that the story as currently told is better without God. The history of Christianity tells fabulous (in the sense of unbelievable) stories of ignorant, controlling people focussed on their specialness and the damnation of others, thoroughly violating the principles and example of the Founder. We see so little focus on the data of the life of Jesus, more on his death. Here is evidence that could inspire!
Most educated people have accepted that the story of Everything is better without God as promoted by the dogma loving orthodox, except they emotionally hold on to a wee hope based on Dawkins-like Jesus Loves Me childish views which emerge when they are dying or at peril. Which they further mask by being consumers, sedating themselves and responding to biological urges.
Religious ideas must flow forward instead of backward, understanding that the life, the universe and all that is in it is a demonstration that matter and energy are one, and that all is formed from this combination. Thus removing the discussion from one of evidence, toward one of an inspiring story, that can lead us forward, and stop fighting rearguard actions to demonstrate (ir)relevance, (un)intelligence and abject cruelty.
Doesn't the science fact, the evidence that matter and energy are the same thing lead naturally to feeling inspired? How close is that to a religious idea? It is not a religious idea itself, but it promotes one. A novel isn't evidence either, nor is the bit of Mahler I'm listening to or the lines of Auden in my head as I write this. But I learn something from them, and by God it is evidence for something more than chemicals leaving one of my neurons to land on the cell membrane of another giving it a little synapsial orgasm.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
no prophet
Why is the science story a better one? Better in what sense?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
]Any number of conjectures can be made and suggestions made as to how they could be easily verified and independently repeatable. There isn't one that stands up to scrutiny, because no god has ever been seen, or touched or heard - except within a person's imagination, when it is of course the person providing the thoughts.
quote:
The number of people saying they have seen/heard/etc something does not make it a reality. The only reality is that human brains can think all of it.
I disagree, on both counts. God has been and is experienced with human senses as valid as those of physical touch and sight and hearing. The more witnesses there are to an event, the more likelihood there is that the event is occurring. Your assumption that these experiences are certainly produced by the imagination adds a huge limitation to your basic premise.
quote:
It does not negate the vanishingly small possibility, but history shows there is no fact upon which to place confidence that there is such a thing, which is why RD for instance says that we should be agnostic. Unfortunately, this is often taken as being a 50/50 position.
Once again, a limitation is introduced, before the theories begin. Who has decided that the possibility is vanishingly small, when the historical human testimony is massive? Unless of course, they were deluded and imagining things too? I can't see that any valid theory can be produced by excluding the witnesses.
An agnostic position which took as a starting point that there was as much possibility as not of the existence of God would surely be a reasonable starting point for a fair trial.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't really understand what 'vanishingly small possibility' means. Is this related to Prof Dawkins' calculations about probability in TGD?
Surely, these terms refer to outcomes in physical events?
How can they be calculated about something such as God, which is admittedly non-naturalistic?
Or does it mean 'this is something I really don't like at all'?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
no prophet
Why is the science story a better one? Better in what sense?
First, I should say that this is not just my judgement, it is the judgement of people generally that the scientific story, from the big bang, solar system and planet formation, changes to the planet, beginnings and progression of life, is grander and more majestic than the creationist fable. That there are probably more than 2 earth like planets for every living human (18 billion) in our galaxy alone. That there is grandeur in the view of life as evolving to fit in with local conditions as adaptations are tested against environmental conditions. That eyes have evolved independently at least 5 times in different species. I could go on and on and on.
It is a better story because it encompasses much more, is more mysterious, is more awesome. Magical stories of angels, of God implanting a child into a woman or of having an angel dictate holy books to someone to write it down is not of the inspirational scale of the science stories. I hear real religious like awe and excitement that must have been like that religion commanded from those involved in science, from those who have gained an understanding of life, the universe and everything that bible stories don't command. Yet, there is room for such inspiration with science. People respond to it. Myself, I recall the National Geographic that showed the first Hubble space telescope pictures of what was seen when they magnified regions of space that were "empty" -- galaxies beyond count.
Thus, the science story is grander, of more majesty and more inspiring. It is also reflective of actual observation, verifiable and can be seen by all. And it does not exclude religious feeling. We cannot challenge faith on the basis of science, but we can adapt to the truths science has shown us. It is well worth reading John Paul's II discussion of evolution in October 1996 to understand part of this: truth cannot contradict truth. And of course he is right:
quote:
JP II, Oct 1996
An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.
I don't see that the promise of this rather inspired statement, and others like them, have started to be realized.
[ 08. January 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The more witnesses there are to an event, the more likelihood there is that the event is occurring.
This would be the case if the witnesses all agreed on what they saw. But is Zeus the same as Shiva?
Is Yahweh another name for Avalokitesvara?
Even Christians interpret their "first hand evidence" very differently from each other.
I agree in that the fact that billions of people experience something, is a sign that that there is a phenomenon worth exploring.
But the diversity of that experience is to me a clear sign of its subjectivity.
This diversity and subjectivity are easy to explain if we are speaking of a man made cultural phenomenon. No need for a supernatural explanation.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
no prophet wrote:
Thus, the science story is grander, of more majesty and more inspiring.
Well, I'm glad you like it. Errm, I'm not sure where this takes us. I like Supertramp.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The "billions of people" part of this argument is very very weak. Billions and billions, or at least millions have believed all sorts of incorrect things, such as spontaneous generation of disease from dirt, in another era that washing was unhealthy, in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, creationism, that some human races were genetically superior to others, in the origin of shroud of Turin as Jesus' burial cloth, that the queen bee was a king bee etc. None of which is factual.
Evidence of this sort is not a matter for voting. Juries are irrelevant, lawyers and judges have never dealt with fact except as an argument and opinion. Ideas which can be destroyed by the truth should be. The truth is something else.
I agree that the truth is of the utmost importance. Of course we all have been and are deceived and believe some things which are untrue, or interpret them using theories or language which is later superceded, but at the same time we believe a lot of things which are true and remain so, as interpreted. Should real life testimony be dismissed, assuming that we're deluded? No. We might and should look for alternative ways of interpreting our experiences. In the case of religion, theology continues to make progress. Religious ideas do move forward.
quote:
God? There is no evidence anyone can present that will sway the truth. The point about God is that it is about a narrative, a story. At the moment, the science story devoid of God is a better narrative than the continuing adherence to ideas formed by uneducated middle eastern nomads entertaining themselves around campfires of camel dung. And that's the problem and fault of religion - that the story as currently told is better without God. The history of Christianity tells fabulous (in the sense of unbelievable) stories of ignorant, controlling people focussed on their specialness and the damnation of others, thoroughly violating the principles and example of the Founder. We see so little focus on the data of the life of Jesus, more on his death. Here is evidence that could inspire!
Most educated people have accepted that the story of Everything is better without God as promoted by the dogma loving orthodox, except they emotionally hold on to a wee hope based on Dawkins-like Jesus Loves Me childish views which emerge when they are dying or at peril. Which they further mask by being consumers, sedating themselves and responding to biological urges.
Religious ideas must flow forward instead of backward, understanding that the life, the universe and all that is in it is a demonstration that matter and energy are one, and that all is formed from this combination. Thus removing the discussion from one of evidence, toward one of an inspiring story, that can lead us forward, and stop fighting rearguard actions to demonstrate (ir)relevance, (un)intelligence and abject cruelty.
You won't be surprised to find that I disagree. Stories of God were never meant to provide a history of the world, but to help people to encounter the one true God and live in relationship with God.
'Most educated people' are of course convinced of the scientific findings of the last few centuries, thanks to their learning. It doesn't follow that they think that the narrative would be better without God. There's no suggestion here I hope that religious people would prefer to live in ignorance than to embrace science. Far from it, religious people founded the universities and funded education.
quote:
Doesn't the science fact, the evidence that matter and energy are the same thing lead naturally to feeling inspired? How close is that to a religious idea? It is not a religious idea itself, but it promotes one. A novel isn't evidence either, nor is the bit of Mahler I'm listening to or the lines of Auden in my head as I write this. But I learn something from them, and by God it is evidence for something more than chemicals leaving one of my neurons to land on the cell membrane of another giving it a little synapsial orgasm.
It isn't either/or, it's both/and. God touches us and reveals himself using all of our faculties: physical, mental and spiritual. When we're touched, the experience is evidence of God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why is the science story a better one? Better in what sense?
One could make the argument on pragmatic grounds, that the science story simply works. For instance, vaccinating against polio works better than trying to exorcise polio-causing demons.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
no prophet
Sorry, I got caught out by the time guillotine, while I was having grand thoughts.
I suppose I don't see it as either/or. I find the science story brilliant, yes. I used to do amateur astronomy and it's mind-boggling. I did a Ph. D. in linguistics - absolutely fabulous. I trained in psychotherapy - magnificent.
However, I also find the Christian story inspiring, well some of the time.
There isn't a contest, is there? Well, OK, if you want there to be one, go ahead.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why is the science story a better one? Better in what sense?
One could make the argument on pragmatic grounds, that the science story simply works. For instance, vaccinating against polio works better than trying to exorcise polio-causing demons.
Well, both stories work for me. I'm not sure why it has be either/or. I don't see the religious story as opposing the science story, nor v.v.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why is the science story a better one? Better in what sense?
One could make the argument on pragmatic grounds, that the science story simply works. For instance, vaccinating against polio works better than trying to exorcise polio-causing demons.
**groan** ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Haven't we been here before? Science may win in this instance, but it cannot when we consider things like Salvation, Resurrection, eternal life can it? Well, you probably think it can.
EDIT:
Er, with the greatest of respect of course!
[ 08. January 2013, 20:22: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I also find the Christian story inspiring, well some of the time.
I'm not sure there's a single "Christian story". I'm pretty sure that your "Christian story" would be somewhat different than the Christian story of EtymologicalEvangelical, both of which would probably be different than Raptor Eye's understanding of the Christian story, and so on. And of course this is all based on the assumption that your particular concept of a Jewish demigod is the One True Deity™, an assumption most non-Christians would take issue with.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
**groan** Haven't we been here before? Science may win in this instance, but it cannot when we consider things like Salvation, Resurrection, eternal life can it? Well, you probably think it can.
I'll simply note that when it comes to life-or-death questions, most people would rather hear "get a doctor" or "get an EMT" instead of "get a priest".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I also find the Christian story inspiring, well some of the time.
I'm not sure there's a single "Christian story". I'm pretty sure that your "Christian story" would be somewhat different than the Christian story of EtymologicalEvangelical, both of which would probably be different than Raptor Eye's understanding of the Christian story, and so on. And of course this is all based on the assumption that your particular concept of a Jewish demigod is the One True Deity™, an assumption most non-Christians would take issue with.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
**groan** Haven't we been here before? Science may win in this instance, but it cannot when we consider things like Salvation, Resurrection, eternal life can it? Well, you probably think it can.
I'll simply note that when it comes to life-or-death questions, most people would rather hear "get a doctor" or "get an EMT" instead of "get a priest".
Whoah, tiger, how do you know that I see the 'One True Deity' in the Christian story? Maybe, like, you should check with your interlocutor before spouting like this!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll simply note that when it comes to life-or-death questions, most people would rather hear "get a doctor" or "get an EMT" instead of "get a priest".
I think you are being deliberately disingenuous here. What would you do if the doctor couldn't save you?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Whoah, tiger, how do you know that I see the 'One True Deity' in the Christian story?
Well, a very particular type of monotheism is a fairly standard feature of the Christian narrative. If you're a Christian polytheist then your "Christian story" is definitely different than most.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
no prophet
Sorry, I got caught out by the time guillotine, while I was having grand thoughts.
I suppose I don't see it as either/or. I find the science story brilliant, yes. I used to do amateur astronomy and it's mind-boggling. I did a Ph. D. in linguistics - absolutely fabulous. I trained in psychotherapy - magnificent.
However, I also find the Christian story inspiring, well some of the time.
There isn't a contest, is there? Well, OK, if you want there to be one, go ahead.
Considering that you like Supertramp, there is no contest and you're bloody well right to say. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
My point is that there is not a contest, but that we have to have the narrative, the story, move forward. That's why I referenced and quoted the JP II statement. There are different ways of knowing, and the religious side has fully dropped the ball whilst remaining cloistered with ancient magical stories and has not spoken to us with anything informative. The only things I'm aware of put forward are tripe like the de-Godded religion of Spong and the misunderstood attempt to force God into Polkinghorne's gaps. On the other side, we get left with science experts, but religious illiterates like Dawkins.
I'm decrying the false battle and the failure outside of minimal attempts by the arts to address this (the arts are too busy shocking us and trying to please sponsors to really to be of help). Oh where shall wisdom be found?! Is it to be found in the land of the currently living? Must we continue to cast into the depths? Are we in fact cast into the depths?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
no prophet
Nice post. Where shall we find wisdom indeed?
Well, one day I'll tell you my story. I learned to stop seeking through Zen, and then I found Christianity again, through my own lens at any rate. Life is strange, eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I get the not seeking. It sometimes seems to me the "evidence" is found in the doing. Like last week, ski touring through the bush with a dog leading the way, and cold when stopped so had to keep going, and the dog and I stayed together, and I baked bread and we watched the deer on the ice and drank tea. Be the dog.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's lovely. You must know the Zen saying, when hungry I eat, when tired, I sleep. At the same time, this is a very difficult place to get to, especially for many Westerners, precisely because they think it's a place to get to. Well, I think people have to go through all that stuff, until they stop. I guess some people never do. I came to a place where I didn't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll simply note that when it comes to life-or-death questions, most people would rather hear "get a doctor" or "get an EMT" instead of "get a priest".
I think you are being deliberately disingenuous here. What would you do if the doctor couldn't save you?
Die? Is that a trick question?
The big problem we run up against is (consistent with the thread) evidence. There's fairly a lot of it demonstrating that polio vaccinations prevent polio. On the other hand, religious belief may promise "Salvation, Resurrection, [and] eternal life" (or escape from the cycle of reincarnation, or removal of your Thetans, or whatever), but evidence that adhering to a specific set of dogmas can deliver any of this is ambiguous at best.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The big problem we run up against is (consistent with the thread) evidence. There's fairly a lot of it demonstrating that polio vaccinations prevent polio. On the other hand, religious belief may promise "Salvation, Resurrection, [and] eternal life" (or escape from the cycle of reincarnation, or removal of your Thetans, or whatever), but evidence that adhering to a specific set of dogmas can deliver any of this is ambiguous at best.
If you want evidence, you need to look for it - but I sometimes wonder if people who say they want it actually do want it.
Jim Morison's book "Who Moved the Stone" would be a good place to start, if you want to prove Christ's Resurrection from the dead, but it isn't a science book so I guess it isn't the sort of evidence you are looking for.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
no prophet wrote:
It sometimes seems to me the "evidence" is found in the doing.
I was thinking about this when I woke up, so it must have made an impression on me. I think it's very interesting, as in the West, at least since the Renaissance, evidence is often conceived of as being discerned by a dispassionate observer. This is fine, but it also strikes me that life is something I participate in.
Thus dualism (subject/object dualism) is somehow built into the idea of evidence, whereas non-dualism haunts spirituality and religion, certainly, its mystical wing.
In fact, one thing I like about Christianity is that I can participate. When I go to the Eucharist, I take part. In fact, arguably, I participate in God, but there we are, that's coming over all postmodern. That's my ration for today of one mention of pm; my spiritual advisor told me that any more was gluttony. Blast.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
no prophet
.
Your post beginning:
quote:
The "billions of people" part of this argument is very very weak. Billions and billions, or at least millions have believed all sorts of incorrect things, ...
A very interesting good read!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I also find the Christian story inspiring, well some of the time.
I find Lord Of The Rings inspiring. That doesn't mean it's true.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's true!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The big problem we run up against is (consistent with the thread) evidence. There's fairly a lot of it demonstrating that polio vaccinations prevent polio. On the other hand, religious belief may promise "Salvation, Resurrection, [and] eternal life" (or escape from the cycle of reincarnation, or removal of your Thetans, or whatever), but evidence that adhering to a specific set of dogmas can deliver any of this is ambiguous at best.
If you want evidence, you need to look for it - but I sometimes wonder if people who say they want it actually do want it.
Bullshit. I'd love some really good evidence, and I've spent decades looking, but I'm still only left with desperate hope.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Jim Morison's book "Who Moved the Stone" would be a good place to start, if you want to prove Christ's Resurrection from the dead, but it isn't a science book so I guess it isn't the sort of evidence you are looking for.
I've not read that particular book, but if it's like any of the ones I have read I doubt it provides any evidence at all.
They generally tend to focus on assuming the Bible is historical truth and saying shit like "lots of other people believed it, they can't all be wrong". Neither argument is actually evidence of anything.
If you want to convince people that thinking about things like Salvation, Resurrection and Eternal Life is important, then you first have to demonstrate that those things actually exist. Otherwise you may as well be talking about how to get to Valinor.
[ 09. January 2013, 10:14: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I have a terrible and shameful secret: I don't want to convince people of anything. If they have their own views and stories, which succour them, then fine.
I don't see that we have much choice in any case. I can't choose not to resonate with the Christian story (sorry, stories!), can I?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
I recall you were the one who used Russell as an argument from authority, presumably on the grounds that such an argument is not necessarily false when the person in question actually is an authority on the subject in hand, and, more importantly, that his statement seemed to support you at the time. I was just following suit.
Fair comment. But I was referring to Russell to make the point that at least a recognised eminent atheist philosopher acknowledged that empiricism was self-refuting. Am I required to follow through to his conclusion that, even though empiricism is self-refuting, it could be true, though we could not know it to be true? He presents a coherent argument to support his claim that empiricism is self-refuting, and yet he presents no argument at all as to why it could be true. So I respect Russell's logic, when he uses logic, and I am sceptical about his unsupported assertions. I thought that was what "critical thinking" was supposed to be about - checking out what people say using something called 'reason'. Or am I wrong about that?
quote:
So, some bloke on the internet on one hand, one of the most important logicians of the twentieth century on the other; subject matter, logic. Bertie it is.
...
So, suddenly by the nature of classical logic, you are the most important logician ever. Admit it, you always suspected as much.
This is a complaint that you keep coming up with again and again and again ad boredom-um. Why is it that you perpetually insinuate that I am not allowed to have an opinion and think for myself, and express that opinion? You seem to think that, because I am expressing my point of view, I am somehow claiming to be the greatest thinker the world has ever seen, and some such nonsense. I am claiming no such thing!
I find it ironic that atheists / humanists say that they want to encourage "critical thinking" in the education system, and they promote themselves as 'freethinkers", and yet when someone argues for a position which is critical of their world view, some of these people then retreat into "who do you think you are to dare to put any kind of argument at all? Obviously a serious case of Dunning-Kruger!"
So basically anybody who expresses a point of view with which the great Grokesx happens to disagree is some kind of nutter with delusions of grandeur, and he is thereby disqualified from expressing his ideas? Presumably therefore you don't agree with critical thinking or freedom of thought and speech?
If you don't agree with my point of view, why don't you just show me how empiricism, though self-refuting, could be true? (Oh wait... you can't! Because Russell said that even though it could be true, we can't know it to be true! So how the hell can we even assert that it could be true?!! Oh dear, silly me, I am not allowed to ask that question, because I'm lapsing into Dunning-Kruger again. Note to self: must remember to take my anti-DK pills.)
quote:
The barber paradox is more tightly defined than you think: "The barber is a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves."
But that can still be shown not to be a paradox, because it could be argued that an action to others is not intrinsically in the same class of actions as actions to oneself (reflexive action). That is why some languages make a big deal of reflexive verbs: is raser quelqu'un the same action as se raser? The physical action of 'shave' is the same, but a verb only has meaning in a context, and a transitive verb requires both an agent and a patient. But what happens when the agent and the patient are the same? It could be argued that the fundamental context of the action has changed such that it can no longer, strictly speaking, be deemed to be exactly the same action. So while you have a point, I am not sure that it can be categorically proven that the barber's paradox is actually a paradox. (As it happens, I have done care work and I can say that the action of shaving other men is intrinsically very different from shaving oneself. This suggests to me that the barber's paradox has a whiff of category error about it.)
But please ignore what I have just written. I suffer from the linguistics form of Dunning-Kruger as well, so obviously I am wrong.
quote:
1:The fundamental entities,electrons, are waves, premise 2: The fundamental entities, electrons, are particles. This is clearly incoherent
Putting my physics Dunning-Kruger hat on, I would ask whether that instance of 'incoherence' is a proven contradiction, or whether it is simply a case of "an apparent contradiction" along with the mysteries of quantum superposition.
As it happens, as someone still in his nappies as far as quantum physics is concerned (hey, that admission made you feel better, didn't it, Grokesx?!), I do have an opinion about superposition (but, I must stress, that this opinion doesn't matter, because it's the view of a random and thoroughly unqualified bloke on the internet. But since all those gloriously intelligent atheists are encouraging us mass of 'unBrights' to engage in "critical thinking" - which I, in my naivete and simplicity, interpret as "thinking for oneself" - then I feel wonderfully liberated to knock together an opinion - not that it will make any difference to anyone else, of course!)
As the incontestably authoritative Wikipedia informs us: "Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations."
In fear and trembling and deep humility, dare I point out that this is exactly how information works? Is it not true that something can exist simultaneously in a variety of different states informationally, which collapses into one state when observed? Allow me to give you an example: we have an informational entity called a story. This is a particular thing that has a particular effect, because it is made up of particular ideas. But in an unread or unheard state (i.e. an unobserved state) it can exist simultaneously in a variety of different forms - a bit like my two different English translations of Les Miserables that sit together on the shelf. But if I wish to access this story - i.e. act like an observer - then the story has to collapse into one particular version in order to enable me to access it (because my observation faculty - my mind - does not have the capacity to read both versions at once).
So who knows - perhaps there is an informational basis to the physical universe, in which events can exist in a variety of different expressions, but which can only be communicated to an observer (with a finite mind) in one expression? Perhaps matter actually is information? (This certainly fits with the idea that "word" is the basis of reality - see an ancient book for confirmation - Hebrews 1:3. God's matrix.).
But please ignore what I have written - better still, have a good laugh - because these are just the naive ramblings of someone quite obviously intoxicated with delusions of grandeur. But because the "Brights" tell me that I should think for myself, therefore I have had the temerity to share my thoughts - purely for entertainment value, you understand!
[ 09. January 2013, 11:33: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you want to convince people that thinking about things like Salvation, Resurrection and Eternal Life is important, then you first have to demonstrate that those things actually exist. Otherwise you may as well be talking about how to get to Valinor.
Supposing you conclude that they might just be true - isn't that good enough reason to start looking further into them?
@Liberal Backslider
We all live in hope, and have to deal with doubts from time to time - but at least you want certainty - I was talking more of people who clearly don't want proof, preferring to use this as an excuse to live for themselves. Such people aren't passive concerning others who believe, but seem to despise and envy them.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you want to convince people that thinking about things like Salvation, Resurrection and Eternal Life is important, then you first have to demonstrate that those things actually exist. Otherwise you may as well be talking about how to get to Valinor.
Supposing you conclude that they might just be true - isn't that good enough reason to start looking further into them?
No, not really. Pretty much anything that isn't demonstrably false (which is a lot of things) might just be true, and I can't spend my whole life chasing after them. I'd rather focus on what can be shown to be true.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
You're right that "I think, therefore I am" is more certain than any statement about the real world. However, it seems clear to me that we're more likely to achieve useful results by assuming that our sense-data tells us something about the world, than by assuming it doesn't.
But I have never said that we should assume that our sense data do not tell us something about the world! Where did you get that idea from?
This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy - setting up a contradiction between sense data and logical inference. The two work together. But my point is - and has always been - that we cannot rely on sense data alone.
So put the straw man on the bonfire, please.
quote:
I was referring to the fact that half your posts on this thread are ornamented with little comments like "how breathtakingly naïve", "bye bye science", and so on. It's annoying and unnecessary. But maybe I overreacted.
You mean to say that people are not allowed to have strong views about such a minor and trivial issue as the fundamental nature of reality?
Don't preach to me. Go and express your annoyance to the Dawkinses, the Harrises and the Myerses of this world - or their equivalents on the Ship.
Would that everyone were as nobly self-controlled as you!
quote:
Truth in the classical sense is both unobtainable and inexpressible. The best you can hope for is a good enough approximation to the truth. But good enough is a pragmatic formulation.
Presumably therefore this assertion of yours is also an approximation?
So it could be wrong - according to your own method of reasoning. Although you could not even assert that it could be wrong, because that statement is itself a truth claim, which would also come under the rule of approximation.
quote:
Any search for truth, even classical truth, requires you to make assumptions for which you can't provide evidence, but which are pragmatically necessary. For example, that the world isn't a delusion caused by little demons, or that physical laws that were observed in the past will continue to be valid into the future.
I don't find it "pragmatically necessary" to listen to a word you're saying.
Prove me wrong.
All your comment consists of is a stream of pixels on my screen. If you think otherwise, then presumably you agree that rationality actually exists, otherwise, on what basis are you expecting me to accept the coherence of your argument? If I find that your stream of pixels is not useful to me, then how can you show me that I am wrong to think like that? In other words, who decides what is "pragmatically necessary"?
You can't promote pragmatism as a binding theory of verification, and then make an exception of your own assertions about it. Unless of course you wish to deny the validity of logic itself. In that case all I can say to you is: blah blah blip blap blop...
quote:
It is hard to find examples of statements that are true in a classical sense but false in a pragmatic sense, which suggests that there isn't really such a gulf between pragmatic and classical truth after all.
How very cunning of you!
All you have said here is that truth is useful. But that doesn't necessarily mean that usefulness implies truth. You can't promote pragmatism, and then construct an argument that starts with what you call "classical truth". What you should start with is utility.
It can easily be shown that useful ideas are not necessarily true. For example, "God exists" has proven to be useful to a great many people. Likewise "God does not exist" (otherwise why would some people be such enthusiastic atheists?). But both 'useful' ideas cannot both be true.
Conversely, if we can argue that "God exists", then this idea may prove to be useful, but actually it is also not useful to those who desire to embrace atheism.
At a more mundane level, telling the truth in some situations may not be very useful - the truthteller may be killed or persecuted in some other way. Telling what is known to be a lie could aid survival far more effectively.
more to come... (gotta go and do other stuff - useful and perhaps even true stuff! - but will respond to the rest of your post later...)
[ 09. January 2013, 12:15: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
God has been and is experienced with human senses as valid as those of physical touch and sight and hearing.
Something has been experience, I agree, people experience a million ideas, sensations, feelings, etc all the time, but saying they are experiences of God (or god/s) is learned behaviour.
quote:
The more witnesses there are to an event, the more likelihood there is that the event is occurring. Your assumption that these experiences are certainly produced by the imagination adds a huge limitation to your basic premise.
The only way that a person knows another is having a particular experience is if information about this is communicated by word, or picture; and the language between the two must be a common one.
quote:
Who has decided that the possibility is vanishingly small, when the historical human testimony is massive? Unless of course, they were deluded and imagining things too? I can't see that any valid theory can be produced by excluding the witnesses.
No one person decided on the vanishingly small point of view; it is a conclusion that is arrived at because of the lack of any objective thing to test.
quote:
An agnostic position which took as a starting point that there was as much possibility as not of the existence of God would surely be a reasonable starting point for a fair trial.
In pre-Science times, maybe, but not now. And what factual evidence could be brought to a trial? Testimony is anecdotal only, surely?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really understand what 'vanishingly small possibility' means. Is this related to Prof Dawkins' calculations about probability in TGD?
Yes, I should think it is most associated with him just now, but I bet he wasn't the first to think of it.
quote:
Surely, these terms refer to outcomes in physical events?
How can they be calculated about something such as God, which is admittedly non-naturalistic?
Or does it mean 'this is something I really don't like at all'?
Spot on I think!! Most atheists would say it's 100% certain there are no gods, but pedantically, one must allow for the increasingly - and of course vanishingly! - small probability that one might actually turn up one day.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And how does one calculate the probability of God?
It's zero if one is a materialist, because materialists can always come up with a cosmology that avoids Him.
Not a real cosmology obviously, probably less 'real' as the many-worlds hypothesis to explain single photon double split interference.
As Fermi's paradox is ignored.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
