simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
When I read arguments like this I'm reminded of the gentle words of Charles Manson.
| Quote: | | Will of God.. whatever you wanna call it.. you call it Jesus, call it Mohammed, call it goobybob, call it nuclear mind, call it blow the world up, call it your heart. Whatever you wanna call it, it's still music to me. It's there. It's the will of life |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fraac wrote: | | TM wrote: | | fraac wrote: | | I don't think you know what words mean. |
Tell me where I made a mistake according to the fraac school of sophism then. |
How can you have a faulty subjective belief? Faulty according to who? The majority? The strongest faction? You? I'm tired of demonstrating the solipsism of people who don't understand what subjective means. |
Solipsism is not valid when it goes beyond the metaphysical, if you claim that there is a deity in your head, you are welcome to do so, there is no point in refuting it however if you claim that said deity interacts with this world in any way, then it is no longer a metaphysical argument you have stepped into the realm of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fraac wrote: | | TM wrote: | | fraac wrote: | | No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes. |
Oooh, I can play with that.
If god is only perceivable subjectively and I assume you here mean "perceive" defined as 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. Then each person's subjective perception of God is unique. If each persons subjective perception of god is different, then it follows that such a god cannot be invoked in an argument as everyone's god is equal and thus they negate each other. |
Who in this thread has offered an argument in favour of God? I've said many times that anyone who genuinely knows God would understand it was non-transmittable in words. |
I think my OP was pretty clear in its use of the word religion
re·li·gion
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Your personal subjective perception of god as per metaphysical solipsism is irrelevant to this thread. In fact, my subjective perception of god as per metaphysical solipsism says that your god according to metaphysical solipsism is bullshit! See why an argument about it is pointless in a thread about religion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
fraac
Tufted Titmouse
![]()
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 1865
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 801
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fraac wrote: | | Woof woof woof! Bark woof yip yip grrr bark woof! |
Sorry, what was that?
| fraac wrote: | | Woof woof bark woof! |
No, two plus two is four. Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fraac wrote: | | No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless. |
Dogs can count. Not very high (I don't know how high off the top of my head), but they can count.
Dogs don't know much arithmetic at all, but they can tell the difference between one ball and two balls. That difference is not meaningless to a dog.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | if you claim that said deity interacts with this world in any way, then it is no longer a metaphysical argument you have stepped into the realm of science. |
Science has a requirement of repeatable experiments. If a deity interacts with the world, not when we want him to, but when he wants to, how can we measure that? Especially if we have to have repeatability?
If you imagine yourself as a supernatural entity (it doesn't even have to be a deity), it's not hard to imagine being able to avoid scientific detection. Just don't do anything predictable near a scientist or science experiment.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | fraac wrote: | | No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless. |
Dogs can count. Not very high (I don't know how high off the top of my head), but they can count.
Dogs don't know much arithmetic at all, but they can tell the difference between one ball and two balls. That difference is not meaningless to a dog. |
I can affirm this with one anecdote, my childhood dog could fetch. And she did so with a unique flair. You could tell her what to fetch, and how many of them. She got it right almost every time, with objects she knew, and small quantities.
My dad had taught her this. And frequently had her fetch him cans of beer from the fridge.
Smartest dog I've ever seen, that one.
So, she had use for arithmetic. It was complicated for her I'm sure, she only had the basic idea of small numbers, but she had use of it.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fraac wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | fraac wrote: | | You keep saying there is no evidence and I keep saying you're a dog being confused by arithmetic. Logically, you have to accept either the possibility that there is evidence that isn't currently accessible to you, or that you have a clearer view than everyone else. One of those sounds implausible to me. |
There is no evidence. If there is, please at this current juncture provide it, a link to it, or other reference. If you cannot do so at this time, please concede that there is no evidence.
I will look at your "arithmetic", if only you will be kind enough to show it to me. |
Narcissus: I can't show you it, you're a dog! All you understand is doggy concerns: links, references, proofs written down. But in fact all one can possibly write down are stories - and stories are never real. When every genuinely religious person says the evidence is available but you have to get there yourself, maybe you should stop thinking you're smarter than them. |
I probably am smarter than them, it is statistically probable that I am. Not because of any quality, religion, spirituality, illogical nonsense, etc. Just the fact they are a human being, I am statistically likely to be smarter than them. But I don’t think intelligence is wholly responsible for someone being illogical like yourself. It may be a contributing factor, but it is not the primary culprit.
Oh, and thanks for conceding that your position has no evidence.
Ps. Maybe the problem with your claim that people have evidence, they just cannot provide it, might just lay with your misunderstanding of the meaning of “evidence”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Look it up, maybe we can get somewhere if we are on the same page about simple word meanings…(Hint, if evidence cannot be provided, it is by default not evidence, see the following)
| wiki wrote: | | Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. |
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1652
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | Science has a requirement of repeatable experiments. If a deity interacts with the world, not when we want him to, but when he wants to, how can we measure that? Especially if we have to have repeatability? |
I think you're just wrong about what science is. The idea that science requires repeatable experiments is a weird definition that doesn't capture the essence of science.
I think that science is about coming up with models that attempt to describe the physical world. In that sense, miracles are in fact stepping on the toes of science. Say that I have a model of the world where everything in the world is an emergent effect of physical laws, and there is no outside influence. Well, by postulating a miracle, you are in fact saying that my model is wrong, and that I need a more complicated model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | TM wrote: | | if you claim that said deity interacts with this world in any way, then it is no longer a metaphysical argument you have stepped into the realm of science. |
Science has a requirement of repeatable experiments. If a deity interacts with the world, not when we want him to, but when he wants to, how can we measure that? Especially if we have to have repeatability?
If you imagine yourself as a supernatural entity (it doesn't even have to be a deity), it's not hard to imagine being able to avoid scientific detection. Just don't do anything predictable near a scientist or science experiment. |
Science doesn't require repeatable experiments to measure something. In this case, it would be a matter of anomalies that cannot be explained by natural means. If a supernatural entity wants to remain hidden it can do so, however in order to interact with the world it would have to interact with the laws of nature. An interaction with the laws of nature can be measured if it is of a great enough magnitude. As I've said before, one can add enough conditionals to make an idea irrefutable, however that doesn't add credence to the idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | TM wrote: | | if you claim that said deity interacts with this world in any way, then it is no longer a metaphysical argument you have stepped into the realm of science. |
Science has a requirement of repeatable experiments. If a deity interacts with the world, not when we want him to, but when he wants to, how can we measure that? Especially if we have to have repeatability?
If you imagine yourself as a supernatural entity (it doesn't even have to be a deity), it's not hard to imagine being able to avoid scientific detection. Just don't do anything predictable near a scientist or science experiment. |
Um, I suppose you have a point but I think Declension answered this question pretty well. Some scientists do believe in God or at least some sort of abstract "higher power"
Not much more to say, other than the moment a person starts talking about religion logically is the moment I begin to suspect whether they are truly religious in the common sense of the word.
I always thought religion was about blind faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | Um, I suppose you have a point but I think Declension answered this question pretty well. Some scientists do believe in God or at least some sort of abstract "higher power"
Not much more to say, other than the moment a person starts talking about religion logically is the moment I begin to suspect whether they are truly religious in the common sense of the word.
I always thought religion was about blind faith. |
The problem arises when people maintain blind faith in the face of reason and evidence to the contrary, and then act upon that fallible blind faith to affect the lives of others so as to spread their irrational blind faith, and in doing so are acting to the detriment of human collective understanding.
Blind faith in something abstract is mostly irrelevant.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | I think you're just wrong about what science is. The idea that science requires repeatable experiments is a weird definition that doesn't capture the essence of science. |
I've never heard of a definition of science that didn't insist on the repeatability of experiments, at least when it's attainable. Observing a rare event, like a supernova, is a one-shot kind of thing, but even there they try to get more supernova observations and compare them.
| Quote: | | I think that science is about coming up with models that attempt to describe the physical world. In that sense, miracles are in fact stepping on the toes of science. Say that I have a model of the world where everything in the world is an emergent effect of physical laws, and there is no outside influence. Well, by postulating a miracle, you are in fact saying that my model is wrong, and that I need a more complicated model. |
That, or the model has certain limitations.
I don't think it makes sense to say that miracles are 'stepping on the toes of science'. Miracles are by definition exceptions to the way things ordinarily happen, science is about our best understanding of how things ordinarily happen.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | I don't think it makes sense to say that miracles are 'stepping on the toes of science'. Miracles are by definition exceptions to the way things ordinarily happen, science is about our best understanding of how things ordinarily happen. |
If a miracle was some sort of event, observable and measurable. I think science would set to the task of understanding it. We would eventually come to some theory of miracles, and understand the inner workings of them. Miracles would be assimilated into science. (Imo, this will be handled my neuroscience  )
If a miracle is not some sort of measurable or observable event, science cannot really break them down...as they are not happening. 
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
|
|
