What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 04:41:13 PM
What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?................
Boy w/ just 39 posts, why do you dare to ask such a question? ;) ;D
Good luck & lookin' forward to the responses - :)
Hi. ;D
According to Hawking, "the universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?"
But who initiated the Big Bang?
I think there is a major creator.
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 06:32:23 PM
But who initiated the Big Bang?
I think there is a major creator.
Just one little note about the misconception above (then I'm outta here ;D )
"Who initiated the Big Bang?" is not a valid question. The notion of time begins
with the Big Bang, there is no BEFORE you can apply to it or think in relation to it. As if that wasn't enough, there is no SPACE before Big Bang either ;D These two make all questions of your sort invalid.
Even if there is a Creator, the act of Creation was not a physical act that you can apply the attributes of causality to. So there is no need to bring the two together.
You either believe that there was a Creator who wished that Big Bang just happen, or not.
Don't you just love all the attempts to make personal belief into a "logical" argument? It is the greatest long-running comedy there is.
'Don't you just love all the attempts to make personal belief into a "logical" argument? It is the greatest long-running comedy there is.'
the attempts to do so with personal disbelief is as funny.
'non-living entities'
?
What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
God, but why assume there was a big bang?
Why does the universe exist?
it's the result of a previous action...a supernatural creation or physical event.
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
mostly to eat, sleep, reproduce...but not limited to those.
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
yes, God.
dj
The universe became so that it can exist, otherwise there would be nothing. If there were no consciousness it wouldn't matter whether it existed or not. ;)
Add some Heidegger, stir and serve.
Dare I kindly recommend for the nth time that you all take discussions like these to a philosophy forum? Where I to be ghastly frank, I might even suggest you're embarrassing yourselves, and these discussions often push the notion of "off-topic" almost to the point of "non sequitur".
"Oh, I was wondering, if I had a nuclear reactor with eight uranium rods and wanted to quadruple its output, what would be the best strategy?"
"I'm going to a safari in Africa, and am unsure as to what sort of calibre the bullets I take with me should be. Does a .38 drop an elephant?"
Believe me, I am the first person to insist that these issues are important (no, not the reactor and the bullets). But everything has its place, and also the know-how necessary to discuss it - least of all with the certainty a lot of you display on these sort of topics. :)
(That having been said, this is not intended to insult or belittle.
It's simply the best way I could find of framing my long-standing reservations about these threads.)
Edit: And I will delete my post if anyone considers it a personal insult.
Quote from: springrite on December 23, 2008, 10:40:48 PM
Don't you just love all the attempts to make personal belief into a "logical" argument?
Yes. At least I love them more than attempts to make illogical arguments. I don't love them all equally, though.
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 06:32:23 PM
Hi. ;D
According to Hawking, "the universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?"
But who initiated the Big Bang?
I think there is a major creator.
I don't see how the concept of creation can be made to work. And though I don't think Hawking is exactly wrong I really don't like the way he puts it here. What does "anything outside itself" refer to? Does he mean "don't even bother thinking about something outside because it makes no sense"? If so he's right. But the way it's said merely indicates the universe is unaffected by what might exist outside, which is incoherent unless Hawking is also positing some kind of multiverse. I don't think he means to do that. What I think he's trying to say is that the universe is the name for everything and causality is internal to it, causality being defined by a succession of events in time.
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 04:41:13 PM
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
I was about to quote "The just shall live by faith" by St. Paul in Romans 1:17. But, then I remembered that, somewhere else in Sacred Scripture that another inspired writer states: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14).
So, am afraid I can't help much here. ??? Although, the Apostle's words seem the wisest. 0:)
This created the universe.
(http://www.gardenseeker.com/lawns/images/toadstool.jpg)
Next question.
Welcome back, Sean! Or Saul? :D
The Universe was created when the spaceship Terminus entered from a parallel dimension and the pilot jettisoned an unstable fuel tank while still in the time vortex.
Duh, I thought everyone knew that....... ;D
Richard Dawkins, obviously.
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 04:41:13 PM
What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
Lang Lang.
Quote from: imperfection on December 25, 2008, 03:53:43 PM
Lang Lang.
You misread the question. The question was "
What or Who Created" it. So, the
Creator of the
Big Bang is obviously
Lang Lang's mother.
Ah, yes. I remember a long time ago when there were a lot of this kind of threads on GMG.
Invariably they wound up getting locked, due to acrimony.
Why anyone would want to discuss this on a music forum is anyone´s guess.
Where did the big bang come from, and before that..how became nothing something, and where did the nothing come from, just asking.....
It's always been there! So simple! ;)
Quote from: Brünnhilde forever on December 26, 2008, 07:28:58 AM
It's always been there! So simple! ;)
And where does the "there" come from?
Quote from: Harry on December 26, 2008, 07:37:55 AM
And where does the "there" come from?
I think We'd all be better served if we all go look for the answers in the music we listen to rather than "discussing" it here. I think it is in opening notes of
Langgaard's
Music of the Spheres.
I could be wrong, you know.
(There is no discussion if "I could be wrong" is NOT an option.)
Quote from: Harry on December 26, 2008, 07:37:55 AM
And where does the "there" come from?
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z245/tapiola/2001-04.jpg)
Quote from: Harry on December 26, 2008, 07:12:49 AM
Where did the big bang come from, and before that..how became nothing something, and where did the nothing come from, just asking.....
You can see creation doesn't work. The only things we are aware of are transitions, not creations. Everything that exists develops out of something else, with the Big Bang as a far pole but not a boundary. The problem I see is that we don't yet have a sufficient understanding of time, seeing it as a medium through which everything flows. This can't be right.
Once Einstein was asked by a reporter to explain his views on the universe and replied that we used to think if we removed matter and energy space and time would still be there, and now we see that space and time would go too. That's the difference, I think. The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" has a buried assumption that there's a blank canvas upon which a "something", once created, could be placed. You could call it a Void. Now the answer is more like "nothing doesn't exist". No void, no nothing.
I'm not the least bit unhappy that nothing doesn't exist. What was it good for? Nothing, that's what!
:D
Why look for a creator, it may just have happened, and to seek understanding is what sets us apart from other earthly Animals, I think!
I would suggest that our brains are not wired to understand these things just as a Worm cannot understand physics etc. enjoy life while you can. 8)
I was watching an episode of 'The Universe' done by the History channel the other night about parallel universes and multverses. The whole thing seemed so hard to believe at times(eg, it mentioned cosmic bubbles--each containing a universe--colliding and as a result creating our universe), but it all seems so fascinating, regardless.
Quote from: Bu on December 26, 2008, 12:45:51 PM
I was watching an episode of 'The Universe' done by the History channel the other night about parallel universes and multverses. The whole thing seemed so hard to believe at times(eg, it mentioned cosmic bubbles--each containing a universe--colliding and as a result creating our universe), but it all seems so fascinating, regardless.
Yes Multiverses are a good way of explaining why it may all be a matter of "luck or chance" i.e., there could be untold numbers of universes and our UV is one that makes life possible, but we are only aware of it in 3 spatial dimensions + Time, yet our UV could have 13 dimensions or a whole heap more that we just cannot conceive. the mind truly boggles.
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 04:41:13 PM
What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
What or who does not matter.
The universe exists because you acknowledge it; the reason "why" does not matter. If you acknowledge it, then perceive it and appreciate it for whatever it is worth to you.
You are the purpose of their existence.
Yes, that "major force" is also within you, waiting for you.
If someone wants to know it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter. It's a reasonable question.
If you answer a knowledge question with a wisdom answer you're just telling people not to ask questions.
Here's how I see "it doesn't matter":
I read something about a football coach who breaks up a fight at a team practice, saying "fellas, in a hundred years none of this will matter", and one of his players replies "why should it matter to us what matters to people a hundred years from now?". ;D
Quote from: Andante on December 26, 2008, 01:10:03 PM
Yes Multiverses are a good way of explaining why it may all be a matter of "luck or chance" i.e., there could be untold numbers of universes and our UV is one that makes life possible, but we are only aware of it in 3 spatial dimensions + Time, yet our UV could have 13 dimensions or a whole heap more that we just cannot conceive. the mind truly boggles.
Speculation and science should never be confused. ::)
Quote from: DavidW on December 27, 2008, 09:22:25 AM
Speculation and science should never be confused. ::)
Confused??? Are theories confused?? surly all theories are just speculation [but not idle] by those with the required knowledge. :)
Quote from: Andante on December 27, 2008, 11:58:21 AM
Confused??? Are theories confused?? surly all theories are just speculation [but not idle] by those with the required knowledge. :)
The word is hypotheses.
Quote from: Andante on December 27, 2008, 11:58:21 AM
Confused??? Are theories confused?? surly all theories are just speculation [but not idle] by those with the required knowledge. :)
No scientific theories are not speculation. ::)
Quote from: DavidW on December 28, 2008, 09:38:58 AM
No scientific theories are not speculation. ::)
Fair enough, so what is the difference between an unproved theory and an educated, informed speculation :)
Quote from: Andante on December 28, 2008, 10:39:07 AM
Fair enough, so what is the difference between an unproved theory and an educated, informed speculation :)
Theory: (Since we're speaking of the supposed beginning of the Universe and related matters, and therefore some aspect of physics) A set of set of self-consistent mathematical statements also consistent with the observations and experiments of the past which provide testable predictions. Having said that, I must add that no theory can ever be proved in the absolute sense. It can only be verified to the accuracy the experiment will allow you.
Informed speculation: Half-but well-baked ideas.
Hi opus67, you come here as well ;) Can I just ask how would you describe the idea of 2 dimensions of time,
And the possibility of 6 or 7 dimensions, what I mean is : is this a half baked idea ?? How would you describe it?
Quote«What or who created the universe?»
Are we sure it wasn't karlhenning?
Quote from: jlaurson on December 28, 2008, 12:00:23 PM
Are we sure it wasn't karlhenning?
No, he invented the internets.
Quote from: Andante on December 26, 2008, 12:08:25 PM
Why look for a creator,
it may just have happened,
and to seek understanding is what sets us apart from other earthly Animals,
I think!
I would suggest that our brains are not wired to understand these things just as a Worm cannot understand physics etc.
enjoy life while you can. 8)
You asked a good question, and then you answered it. But then you compare us to worms, which contradicts what you said before.
The same desire to understand that seeks out a creator is used to find what's there. Sometimes what you look for is not what you find, but what you find is even better because it's real. The fiction of the feeble, wormlike mind is self-undermining. Only a great intelligence can see limits to itself, even false ones. Worms don't think they miss anything.
I don't know how the universe came about, and I don't believe anyone does. I start with considering 2 points, that (1) "coming into existence" must have an explanation consistent with science about how everything behaves, or (2) if that can't be done then there's something wrong with the idea. I'm betting there's something wrong with the idea, because even the strange world of quantum mechanics with it's seeming paradoxes isn't really a contradiction of our macro-understanding. In fact I think that the breakdown of causality at the micro-level is a kind of clue (maybe not strictly a scientific clue, but a philosophical one
:D).
Maybe causality has an upper limit as well. What provides a framework for comprehending the relation of parts can't tell you about a whole which isn't a part of anything. If there was evidence that something "outside" the Universe was affecting it in some way we'd have to account for it causally by incorporation if we wanted everything to make sense. Something can't be both everything and not everything. The Universe must expand to contain everything we find or it stops being the Universe. That how we've dealt with the problem through successive scientific revolutions, and I can't even imagine how an extensible concept like this could ever be abandoned.
drogulus You make good points however I did not think I contradicted my self I may not have been very clear, [if you mean comparing ourselves to worms] I was trying to explain why we may never be able to understand these things in that our thinking is limited to what we experience as is a worms. but some can try.
Here is the clearest and most concise argument for the existence of a supreme being that I've read on this forum. Well, I at least find it very convincing.
It was written by Al Moritz:
Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh my ass off. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".
No one will ever know. It's hopeless. No one should have even started asking the question, it only leads to a mess.
Quote from: G$ on December 28, 2008, 07:29:08 PM
No one will ever know. It's hopeless. No one should have even started asking the question, it only leads to a mess.
Right, let's scrap this philosophy business then, and go drinking. 8)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 28, 2008, 06:26:07 PM
It was written by Al Moritz:
Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh my ass off. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".
I'm not sure if the argument is by Al Moritz, and I've read it in a more concise form, too: Namely: "The unmoved Mover." :)
And no scientifically minded atheist would ever confuse the science aspect of, say, creation, and atheism, per se. First of all: the two are unrelated - it is not the goal of science to disprove God nor the intent of "Atheism" to explain the world. Secondly, once cannot disprove a negative, and so there is not even a claim to somehow scientifically prove that God doesn't exist (or wasn't necessary). Science doesn't exist to disprove G_d, it exists to give explanations of
how things work. Philosophically speaking, science cannot answer the question of "why", only of "how". (Although at enough distance, the two can become confused.)
But if you don't mind the confusion of science & religion, the Southpark episodes dealing with this (all available for free on www.southparkstudios.com (http://www.southparkstudios.com) are quite funny.
Quote from: Andante on December 28, 2008, 11:57:18 AM
Hi opus67, you come here as well ;)
Yes, sir, I post here too. :)
QuoteCan I just ask how would you describe the idea of 2 dimensions of time,
And the possibility of 6 or 7 dimensions, what I mean is : is this a half baked idea ?? How would you describe it?
I don't have all the "credentials"/technical know-how to judge what is happening at the forefront of theoretical physics, but there are some people who vehemently voice their opinions against certain theories which predict warped multiple dimensions - I'm specifically referring to the various forms of String Theory, which I assume is what you were alluding to when you said "the possibility 6 or 7 dimensions." Check in particular Peter Woit's
Not Even Wrong, a blog (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/) and a book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756) of the same name, and Lee Smolin's book (http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230561072&sr=8-1)
The Trouble with Physics. The two were released within a short period of each other and caused quite a stir. These guys are respectable professionals in their respective fields -- Woit is actually a mathematician --
although some string theorists, naturally, would beg to differ. ;)
Oh, BTW, I haven't come across the idea of two time dimensions. Do you have a link or something?
Quote from: Renfield on December 28, 2008, 07:52:04 PM
Right, let's scrap this philosophy business then, and go drinking. 8)
Yeah, because the whole universe could really just be like the Matrix. Even if people got to figure out who or what created the universe by time-travelling back to see(which would be nice), you never know if the universe is part of something else, or some sort of virtual reality. And then, that could be part of something else, too. Doesn't hurt to know as much as you can, but there will always be more.......
existence is all just an illusion........... >:D
Will I get to hear Bach outside the Matrix?
Quote from: opus67 on December 29, 2008, 06:06:18 AM
Will I get to hear Bach outside the Matrix?
I've never been outside the Matrix, but........
i'm sure the creatures steal music from Our Universe for their own entertainment. I suppose you could get a hold of a few recordings, but not without risks.
Quote from: G$ on December 29, 2008, 05:59:03 AM
Yeah, because the whole universe could really just be like the Matrix. Even if people got to figure out who or what created the universe by time-travelling back to see(which would be nice), you never know if the universe is part of something else, or some sort of virtual reality. And then, that could be part of something else, too. Doesn't hurt to know as much as you can, but there will always be more.......
existence is all just an illusion........... >:D
You'd be surprised how many people have come up with this concept so far. ;D
As for outside the Matrix, I bet the machines produce some
killer Electronica!
Quote
As for outside the Matrix, I bet the machines produce some killer Electronica!
So that's where it came from! :o
Their world must be creeping into ours....... the apocalypse is near.
Quote from: G$ on December 29, 2008, 07:21:35 AM
So that's where it came from! :o
Their world must be creeping into ours....... the apocalypse is near.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Kraftwerk_The_Man_Machine_album_cover.jpg)
Wir sind die Roboter? *doot, doot doot doot*
Quote from: Andante on December 28, 2008, 10:39:07 AM
Fair enough, so what is the difference between an unproved theory and an educated, informed speculation :)
There is no such concept of proof in science. You have evidence that supports or falsifies assertions, no more, no less. What do you mean by educated or informed? You can't use appeal to authority in science, either you have supporting evidence or you do not. Even the greatest minds of science will not have their opinions taken on good faith.
Quote from: opus67 on December 29, 2008, 05:45:06 AM
The two were released within a short period of each other and caused quite a stir. These guys are respectable professionals in their respective fields -- Woit is actually a mathematician --
No actually Woit is a physicist. His research area was in high energy theory, he simply teaches as a mathematics professor, but he is a physicist. I think the problem with both Smolin and Woit is that they are not insiders, Smolin works in fringe areas of quantum gravity and Woit hasn't been engaged in research in quite awhile. I think that they are qualified to write what they have written, but it's certainly true that their credibility has been attacked at every turn.
I'm not a fan of string theory, I don't consider it science... but I have to say that I've read both books and I do not think think that they are well written.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 28, 2008, 06:26:07 PM
Here is the clearest and most concise argument for the existence of a supreme being that I've read on this forum. Well, I at least find it very convincing.
Actually it's simply retarded.
QuoteSomething must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else.
That assertion itself is highly debatable, and is taken as an axiom for the rest of the argument. ::) The entire argument thus collapses like a house of cards.
Quotein the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter
? what? The sheer stupidity of this claim is mind boggling! (a) Attributing a positive belief to a group of people only unified by a negative belief, (b) obviously contradicts modern physics, (c) I've never heard an atheist speak this way, AND I AM AN ATHEIST!
Quote(that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere).
The unmoved mover is an argument only fit for children and naive simpletons.
QuoteWhatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".
Once the strawman is constructed, the fool now gets to smugly laugh at the absurd conclusion! Oh how delightfully insipid! :D
If that's all you had Pinkie, come back when you have something actually intelligent to say.
Quote from: DavidW on December 29, 2008, 08:51:56 AM
No actually Woit is a physicist. His research area was in high energy theory, he simply teaches as a mathematics professor, but he is a physicist.
Ah, my bad.
Quote from: Brünnhilde forever on December 26, 2008, 07:28:58 AM
It's always been there! So simple! ;)
An interesting statement of faith! ;)
Do you contest the Big Bang, then?
Quote from: DavidW on December 29, 2008, 08:58:54 AMIf that's all you had Pinkie, come back when you have something actually intelligent to say.
Fine, but remember what I wrote:
"Well, I at least find it very convincing"There was no need for you to be impolite as you demonstrated the weakness of that argument.
Quote from: springrite on December 26, 2008, 07:43:08 AM
I think We'd all be better served if we all go look for the answers in the music we listen to rather than "discussing" it here. I think it is in opening notes of Langgaard's Music of the Spheres.
I like that!
Quote from: Andante on December 26, 2008, 12:08:25 PM
I would suggest that our brains are not wired to understand these things just as a Worm cannot understand physics etc. enjoy life while you can. 8)
Underneath wry witticism, is truth. We may never get all the answers. The idea that, if we ask long enough, and ask the right questions, we will possess all the answers, is a kind of faith, too.
Quote from: Bu on December 26, 2008, 12:45:51 PM
I was watching an episode of 'The Universe' done by the History channel the other night about parallel universes and multverses. The whole thing seemed so hard to believe at times(eg, it mentioned cosmic bubbles--each containing a universe--colliding and as a result creating our universe), but it all seems so fascinating, regardless.
I was reading a chapter in manuscript, which touched briefly on multiverses, too :)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2008, 09:58:35 AM
I was reading a chapter in manuscript, which touched briefly on multiverses, too :)
:D
Holst wrote
The Planets, Dr. Karl, and if String and M theory are true, I think a musical composition for
Cosmic Space Bubbles will be necessary. ;)
An eternal Universe may not be what I'm describing. I'm proposing that all observable laws remain inviolate until new evidence suggests they are different from what we thought. In the case of relativity Einstein showed that new unforseen conclusions could be obtained simply by following features of known law to their logical conclusions. Then it was confirmed experimentally.
The comparison with the worm isn't good. Worms don't have the equipment to ask questions or answer them, and we do. As for not being wired correctly, that's not true either. Though we aren't Turing machines the way he described them, our brains have become universal processors. What we lack is information to process, and over time we get that, too.
QuoteSomething must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else.
This is an argument for sticking with a bad explanation. If what you're trying to do is explain everything there's no "else" by definition. Either the explanation comes from the investigation of the properties and behavior of what we can see or there isn't one.
The trick is to understand that explanations aren't absolute, and
ultimate explanations will always tend to be fictional because of that. We don't have absolute knowledge, so everything is based on what we
do have. We shouldn't just content ourselves with that, we should prefer it, because absolute claims are phony. I don't know why people who complain about partial knowledge want to jump to absolute claims. Reliable but incomplete knowledge is much better even if it doesn't give us everything we want.
All real knowledge is incremental, built up from the bottom, tied into the web of previous discoveries. That's why the bogus tends to leave clues to its bogosity.
;D ;D It just sits there blinking in the sunlight, unconnected to anything else. All the magic, secret, esoteric crap is like this, and the jump to the absolute is like this, too. If we never get answers by the incremental route, the absolutes won't help us either. So I'm in favor of getting what we can and not worrying too much about what we can't get.
Quote from: opus67 on December 29, 2008, 05:45:06 AM
Yes, sir, I post here too. :)
I don't have all the "credentials"/technical know-how to judge what is happening at the forefront of theoretical physics,
Oh, BTW, I haven't come across the idea of two time dimensions. Do you have a link or something?
I do not have required credentials either just a fascination with cosmology, I will check out your links, the link re 2 time dimensions etc By Tom Siegfried
http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html
(http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html)
Is it possible that the universe actually wraps around on itself, sort of like an Escher print? This would eliminate the "what's past the universe" question, after all.......
Then, is it possible to travel through time?
Quote from: G$ on December 29, 2008, 02:15:37 PM
Is it possible that the universe actually wraps around on itself, sort of like an Escher print? This would eliminate the "what's past the universe" question, after all.......
Yes, either in this way or some other we don't understand yet. If space and matter are not infinite they must have some kind of borderless continuity, like a balloon.
Quote from: epicous on December 29, 2008, 02:20:35 PM
Then, is it possible to travel through time?
Depends upon what you mean? I would think that you would not be able to go into the future because it has not happened yet we are in the present which is the [front???] of time, and if you could go into the past, then this would alter the present and throw up all sorts of anomalies, but some one will say yes ;D ;D
Quote from: DavidW on December 29, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
There is no such concept of proof in science. You have evidence that supports or falsifies assertions, no more, no less. What do you mean by educated or informed? You can't use appeal to authority in science, either you have supporting evidence or you do not. Even the greatest minds of science will not have their opinions taken on good faith.
By educated or informed, I meant based on accepted facts that are used to form an opinion or theory, but you will no doubt rubbish that idea, when you say there is no concept of proof in science I assume that you mean although an event has been observed to happen as predicted every time, does not mean that the next time will be the same ?
Quote from: Andante on December 29, 2008, 05:15:01 PM
Depends upon what you mean? I would think that you would not be able to go into the future because it has not happened yet we are in the present which is the [front???] of time, and if you could go into the past, then this would alter the present and throw up all sorts of anomalies, but some one will say yes ;D ;D
Wouldn't you disintegrate going that fast, though?
Ubloobideega.
Quote from: DavidW on December 29, 2008, 08:58:54 AMAND I AM AN ATHEIST!
Please remember that
Plato himself made references to the gods, or the god and the 'divine'.
Quote from: Herman on December 26, 2008, 06:30:32 AM
Ah, yes. I remember a long time ago when there were a lot of this kind of threads on GMG.
Invariably they wound up getting locked, due to acrimony.
Why anyone would want to discuss this on a music forum is anyone´s guess.
Happily, these threads are generally fewer these days.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 28, 2008, 12:00:23 PM
Are we sure it wasn't karlhenning?
I wasn't available at the time.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 30, 2008, 06:42:38 AM
I wasn't available at the time.
But they DID find your glove there.
Quote from: DavidW on December 29, 2008, 08:58:54 AMThe unmoved mover is an argument only fit for children and naive simpletons.
Naive simpletons ? Really ?
Personally, I will take the thoughts of Plato and Arisotle over yours anyday...
Quote:
While Plato assumes God exists as the ultimately good (but not omnipotent) being, Aristotle questions God's active role in the universe and claims that nature depends upon an immaterial Supreme Being. For example, he cites natural genesis and the perpetuity of movement as evidence of God's immaterial existence, and he implies that God is a self-sufficient, compelling force for both nature and man.
The question really is, should I send in the Firemen? ::) :-\
Pinkie, do you want me to more precisely and politely express my opinion, okay--
After thousands of years of deep thinking from great minds, only a simpleton in this day and age would still think that the archaic unmoved mover argument was logically valid or clever. After all great minds used to think that the heavens revolved around the Earth, but certainly only a simpleton would believe that would still be the case just because great minds of the past had seemingly good arguments why.
A child could pierce the flaw in the logic, and all of the great names trotted up for defense can not save such a silly idea.
And keep in mind that I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists making facile, pseudo-logical arguments to support their beliefs.
Quote from: DavidW on December 30, 2008, 07:46:59 AMAnd keep in mind that I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists making facile, pseudo-logical arguments to support their beliefs.
Yes, like the totally sick and abhorrent practice of infant circumcision by orthodox Jews.
As someone who believes in the existence of a supernatural being (though NOT in the Judao/Christian one), I found the results of this Oxford researcher several weeks ago a bit comforting:
Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds. Human minds, under normal developmental conditions, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and in other ideas commonly associated with 'religion' ... In a real sense, religiousness is the natural state of affairs and children generate religious ideas quite naturally, as a result of the way our brains have evolved....
Unbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural... You have to indoctrinate someone into being an atheist.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/nov/26/religion-psychology-barrett
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 30, 2008, 08:48:59 AM
Yes, like the totally sick and abhorrent practice of infant circumcision by orthodox Jews.
Where did you get the notion that only orthodox jews practice infant circumcision? Not only don't you know your facts, you also show a whimp-like attitude about the practice.
There's no reason to prefer the ancients to modern thinkers. Our thought is based on theirs and extends beyond it. Otherwise you're just treating them as authorities. No one is an authority in that way.
QuoteUnbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural... You have to indoctrinate someone into being an atheist.
This is wrong. In different cultures beliefs without rational/empirical foundation tend to predominate among the uneducated and taper off as you go up the scale, though you have to get close to the top to find a predominance of pure naturalism. Even there you find many believers.
Indoctrination plays a tiny, inconsequential role in the phenomenon of unbelief in most societies. Most atheists/agnostics grow up in families with conventional beliefs, and a smaller number in families where religion is not practiced. In the latter case the absence of conditioning certainly has an impact.* Yet it seems clear to me that what happens in late childhood or early adolescence often occurs whether conditioning is present or not. It's likely that several factors are working together here: High intelligence, absent or unusually ineffective conditioning, and some form of genetic predisposition related to suggestibility. There are probably different pathways to get there.
The very different Communist-inspired atheism probably is fated to fade with the rest of the ideology, and I expect unbelief in formerly Communist countries to follow a pattern more like what's found elsewhere. The Communist model has not produced a single atheist/agnostic thinker of note. I conclude that the model that predominates in religious or Communist communities and families can't replicate what happens to a young person who discovers a natural worldview.
* The biggest impact is the lack of trauma. When you say you're an atheist no one is shocked, though they might be puzzled, since most non-belief takes the form of not going to the races if you don't bet on horses. ;D
Quote from: DavidW on December 30, 2008, 07:46:59 AMAnd keep in mind that I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists making facile, pseudo-logical arguments to support their beliefs.
Look, I didn't want to enumerate the most obvious examples. Of course we have suicide bombing, the right to life fundies against abortion, opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research, etc.... but I consider both neonatal and religious circumcision as a greatly under-reported human rights issue.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 31, 2008, 09:34:58 AM
Look, I didn't want to enumerate the most obvious examples. Of course we have suicide bombing, the right to life fundies against abortion, opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research, etc.
You're clumping "opposition to gay marriage" together with "suicide bombing"?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2008, 09:40:18 AM
You're clumping "opposition to gay marriage" together with "suicide bombing"?
What I meant was that neither of those would exist if it weren't for the religious element.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 31, 2008, 09:45:22 AM
What I meant was that neither of those would exist if it weren't for the religious element.
I disagree. Religion, among other things, has been used for centuries to justify the predispositions of its "followers." Why do you think there's such controversy surrounding Christianity and homosexuality?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2008, 09:40:18 AM
You're clumping "opposition to gay marriage" together with "suicide bombing"?
;D
Quote from: DavidW on December 31, 2008, 08:18:02 AMI didn't realize that I was conversing with a baboon. My mistake.
Do you really find it easier to believe that matter came into existence out of nothing rather than a deity, however malevolent ?
Quote from: drogulus on December 30, 2008, 02:10:51 PM
Most atheists/agnostics grow up in families with conventional beliefs
Why mixing agnostics with atheists? We agnostics are different from atheists.
Quote from: epicous on December 31, 2008, 10:07:20 PM
Why mixing agnostics with atheists? We agnostics are different from atheists.
Similar to atheists, granted, but without the spine. ;D
(I love the bit where Freud rips agnostics in the introduction to "Civilization and its Discontents". Not agnostics "hedge their bets", but a lot seem to be doing just that... Unable to disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn, they dare not go on the record stating that it doesn't exist. That's incidentally not how Freud puts it, but I haven't the book here for the exact quote.)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 31, 2008, 04:36:42 PM
Do you really find it easier to believe that matter came into existence out of nothing rather than a deity, however malevolent ?
The lack of an answer to one question does not in any way stipulate another specific answer. That's the old "I don't know XYZ ---> therefore God" fallacy. Aside: Atheism isn't trying to give the "easy" answer. In that sense you are right. It's of course easier to answer every unanswerable question with "therefore God" and stop thinking beyond those points. That's perhaps the main reason for the existence of supernatural, omnipotent beings in all cultures.
It's simply more difficult to believe that there are things beyond our comprehension than to trust the explanation ("God") that very conveniently gives us all the "answer". "God" is really just an acronym for "Beyond my comprehension" or "Can't Explain".
----------
"The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know
this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we
know that she is invisible because we can't see her."
I don't participate to this kind of discussions much anymore. The reason is:
Religion is poison that contaminates the mind. Arguing with religious people is usually pointless. Since they can't give up their beliefs, they have to resort to false logic. Whenever logic supports atheists (that tends to happens very often), religious people say you can't use logic to religious things (NOMA - Non-Overlapping Magisteria). At the same time they use false logic to support their own claims! That's intellectually disgusting.
Hey, I want to believe! ;D
Jens,
Quote from: jlaurson on January 01, 2009, 12:20:55 AMThe lack of an answer to one question does not in any way stipulate another specific answer. That's the old "I don't know XYZ ---> therefore God" fallacy. Aside: Atheism isn't trying to give the "easy" answer. In that sense you are right. It's of course easier to answer every unanswerable question with "therefore God" and stop thinking beyond those points. That's perhaps the main reason for the existence of supernatural, omnipotent beings in all cultures.
I am very amenable to rational arguments except when it comes to this matter of the existence of supernatural beings.
A question:
If there most likely are no gods, why is suicide unethical ?
Why do we give so much weight to the functionalist argument which says that we as individuals are not 'islands' and therefore suicide is wrong.
Quote from: Harry on January 01, 2009, 01:46:32 AM
Hey, I want to believe! ;D
Okay Mulder--
(http://img1.jurko.net/wall/paper/x_files_23.jpg)
;D
Quote from: DavidW on January 01, 2009, 07:46:42 AM
Okay Mulder--
(http://img1.jurko.net/wall/paper/x_files_23.jpg)
;D
;D ;D ;D
Excellent
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 01, 2009, 07:08:33 AM
Jens,
I am very amenable to rational arguments except when it comes to this matter of the existence of supernatural beings.
A question:
If there most likely are no gods, why is suicide unethical ?
Why do we give so much weight to the functionalist argument which says that we as individuals are not 'islands' and therefore suicide is wrong.
There are many things in life that go beyond reason and rationality. The very notion of the Romantic, for example. Or trust, the little cousin of faith. There are also inborn needs in humans, that cannot be traced and justified entirely on rational grounds. Not yet, at any rate, and I hope the day never comes when we can. Accepting intangibles in life is important... they make it worth living. Not unlike the many intangibles that go into a superb orchestral performance where it can make for greatness -- greatness that could not be, if a computer perfectly simulated every note in just the right way. It's the 'dirt' in the creases, nooks, and corners that gives the flavor. It's the absence of absolutism. But accepting intangibles (accepting question marks) is in no way indicative of definitive answers (God, that argumentative exclamation mark.)
Specifically on suicide: Well, I am not sure if it is any more widely considered unethical than there are people who question the existence of a higher being. In other words: Most people believe in higher powers and most people find suicide problematic. Some people don't find suicide problematic, some don't believe in God. The latter two are surely minority opinions... but I should think that more people don't find suicide unethical than there are non-religious people.
In any case, the numbers-argument on ethics isn't a very good one. Although ethics are obviously related to social norms, this democratic approach doesn't prove anything. Is suicide unethical only because a lot of people think so? You can't expect an atheist to agree with that kind of argument. It'd be like saying God (Allah, I suppose) exists, because more people believe in him/it than don't.
But let's look at why suicide is widely considered immoral. I suppose it has to do with the idea that *being* is the first principle of anything human (the ultimate "sine qua non"), and hence the self-*undoing* of it must seem very offensive, indeed. Perhaps, more practically, it's considered unethical because it sucks for those who remain? Or because there is an element of cheating yourself out of culpability and (earthly) accountability???
All I can say with any sort of definitiveness is that I'm pretty sure that an internet forum is not a satisfactory place to discuss this fascinating question. But I don't see it related to the existence of God in any essential way.
Suicide may well be immoral because of the distress it causes to others. On the other hand this may not always be the case. Some of you seem to be arguing that without religion there is no morality. This is surely a bad mistake.
This is a new one on me! I have never met anyone in my life who has said that they thought suicide was immoral.
Quote from: Guido on January 01, 2009, 09:54:42 AM
This is a new one on me! I have never met anyone in my life who has said that they thought suicide was immoral.
Good thing you've never run into Kant, then! ;)
Quote from: Renfield on January 01, 2009, 11:13:33 AM
Good thing you've never run into Kant, then! ;)
I haven't read that part of Kant, no! He's the most difficult philosopher that I have ever tried to read - so hideously dense that it's a wonder that anyone persevered enough to realise quite how important he was!
Quote from: jlaurson on January 01, 2009, 12:20:55 AM
The lack of an answer to one question does not in any way stipulate another specific answer. That's the old "I don't know XYZ ---> therefore God" fallacy. Aside: Atheism isn't trying to give the "easy" answer. In that sense you are right. It's of course easier to answer every unanswerable question with "therefore God" and stop thinking beyond those points. That's perhaps the main reason for the existence of supernatural, omnipotent beings in all cultures.
You're right. Notice this is the approach of the creationists/ID'ers. Evolution is false so creation is right. This amounts to a failure of imagination equaling insight into possibilities.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 31, 2008, 04:36:42 PM
Do you really find it easier to believe that matter came into existence out of nothing rather than a deity, however malevolent ?
Creation out of nothing and creation by god are both bad solutions. They are the same. Something can't come out of a nothing god or a nothing nothing. All we can do with what exists is observe it and figure out what it does. Insight into origins can't come any other way. If you aren't reasoning about evidence what are you reasoning about?
Ideas about existence can come from anywhere. What matters is not where they come from, but if they can be confirmed by observations. I like to run this backwards.
:D Since true ideas are those that are confirmed by observation, I build that into my definition of truth. The truth simply
is what is confirmed*, and absolutist ideas about the "real truth" are rejected as useless abstractions. This view is called pragmatism (a variant of it). Self validating abstract systems like logic and mathematics don't receive this treatment. Once you give up on the idea of an absolute "truth beyond truth" life is simpler, and food tastes better.
:)
Remember, even if there was a "real truth out there" beyond what we're capable of observing/confirming, the only way you could know is ....by confirming it!
;D * If I was strict about this, I'd be a positivist. I allow for probabilistic interpretations and enough speculative room for new science. What matters is that confirmation is the goal, the gold standard. I'm rejecting unknowable truth out of hand, not things we haven't figured out yet. If I can't tell if a proposition is one or the other the tie goes to the runner. :D ???
Drogulus,
Quote from: drogulus on January 01, 2009, 01:53:21 PMCreation out of nothing and creation by god are both bad solutions. They are the same. Something can't come out of a nothing god or a nothing nothing. All we can do with what exists is observe it and figure out what it does.
A different angle for a moment: Don't you think that the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens have an important blindspot and that is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.
Isn't that inadequate ? I think society needs a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served. Shouldn't we put the humanism back in the secular ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 01, 2009, 02:51:39 PM
Drogulus,
A different angle for a moment: Don't you think that the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens have an important blindspot and that is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.
Isn't that inadequate ? I think society needs a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served. Shouldn't we put the humanism back in the secular ?
I disagree with the idea that you have to replace one concept with another. Sometimes the problem is having more concepts than you can justify.
The valuable functions that religion performs will always be performed. Atheists/agnostics operate under the same value systems without the religious intermediary. The same values built into believers are built into everyone else, as Dawkins explained in
The God Delusion. The nature of moral intuitions doesn't change very much. When you substitute "what values should be chosen?" for "what values were chosen for you?" you find they are the same. If religions really had a secret communication path to the absolute the values would be different. But if the god ideas believers hold are as vaporous as they appear then there shouldn't be a difference, and there isn't. That is, the overlap is far greater than what separates them. You can find moral wedge issues to pry the groups apart just as you can between religions. The secret pipeline to truth has nothing in it that isn't found elsewhere except belief in the pipe.
Quote from: Guido on January 01, 2009, 12:48:10 PM
I haven't read that part of Kant, no! He's the most difficult philosopher that I have ever tried to read - so hideously dense that it's a wonder that anyone persevered enough to realise quite how important he was!
Everyone keeps saying that...
I
do acknowledge that Kant writes densely: essentially every word carries full "weight of meaning", and it can read like formal logic in English (or German, as the case may be). However, I never found him
impenetrable - far from it, I greatly enjoy reading his work. :)
Then again, I read sentences in logic directly without translating them, so perhaps it's that knack that makes it easier. But that still doesn't cut it, or every serious logician (and likely most serious mathematicians) would find Kant fun like I do, and they don't seem to.
Quote from: Renfield on January 01, 2009, 04:57:43 PMI do acknowledge that Kant writes densely: essentially every word carries full "weight of meaning", and it can read like formal logic in English.
Here is one of my favorite criticisms of Kant:
Immanuel Kant the greatest philosopher? The greatest bore, yes. The most exhaustive in his quest to clarify the obvious, maybe. For me, he represents everything ridiculous about Academe:
bloated intellectuals who never use two words when two thousand will suffice.
I'd say the greatest philosopher would be Wittgenstein -- who basically explained why any rigorous analytical approach to metaphysical philosophy, such as Kant's, is 'wrongheaded' from the start. After the Enlightenment, and the relative success of scientific principles of analytical study, philosophers imagined that they could apply these same principles to any field of study, and come up with similar proofs and models for metaphysics as the scientists had done for physics. Frege, Bertrand Russell, AJ Ayer and, ultimately, Wittgenstein, tried to break down language into mathematical structures so that philosophy could be dealt with in a scientific way, but they found that language and human understanding had too nebulous a connection. In other words, we could understand concepts without any need for 100% precision -- the kind Kant was aiming for -- instead, we use 'fuzzy logic'. Ironically, now this concept of 'fuzzy logic' is being applied by scientists.
*****
:)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 01, 2009, 05:17:48 PM
Here is one of my favorite criticisms of Kant:
Immanuel Kant the greatest philosopher? The greatest bore, yes. The most exhaustive in his quest to clarify the obvious, maybe. For me, he represents everything ridiculous about Academe: bloated intellectuals who never use two words when two thousand will suffice.
I'd say the greatest philosopher would be Wittgenstein -- who basically explained why any rigorous analytical approach to metaphysical philosophy, such as Kant's, is 'wrongheaded' from the start. After the Enlightenment, and the relative success of scientific principles of analytical study, philosophers imagined that they could apply these same principles to any field of study, and come up with similar proofs and models for metaphysics as the scientists had done for physics. Frege, Bertrand Russell, AJ Ayer and, ultimately, Wittgenstein, tried to break down language into mathematical structures so that philosophy could be dealt with in a scientific way, but they found that language and human understanding had too nebulous a connection. In other words, we could understand concepts without any need for 100% precision -- the kind Kant was aiming for -- instead, we use 'fuzzy logic'. Ironically, now this concept of 'fuzzy logic' is being applied by scientists.
*****
:)
With all due respect, you are not correct. Wittgenstein was a tremendous philosopher, is the person who made me decide to focus my professional activity around the subject, and was brilliant. As were Frege, Russel, Ayer (in ethics), and Kant.
Philosophy, and especially modern philosophy, cannot be explained so simply; nor Kant disregarded so blatantly. Wittgenstein himself was tremendously influenced by Kant, as were his predecessors in the logicist movement (along with Plato, for Gottleb Frege in particular). And the logicists failed in their objective of codifying reality through logic not because language and human understanding have "too nebulous a connection", but because Kurt Gödel prove that logicism as they pursued it was
structurally impossible.
Finally, fuzzy logic (a rather irksome term, to which most logicians prefer "many-valued logic") is
an extension of classical logic, not
the extension of classical logic. In fact, it's not even the only many-valued logic in existence.
I will acknowledge as a point that Kant's 100% "covering" of his concepts
could be misguided. But if it
is misguided, the reasons will be deeper than "bloatedness", or unclarity of exposition. Metaphysics and analytical philosophy are not necessarily one and the same.
Also, Frege and Russell considered their work an extension of
Plato's approach to formalising reality starting with the tools Aristotle had observed, which they could expand on with modern mathematical notions - some of which (quantifiers) Frege invented - even before having anything to do with the Enlightenment, for which they were a couple of centuries too late. And saying that they "tried to break down language into
mathematical structures so that philosophy could be dealt with in a
scientific way" is also wildly inaccurate. Philosophy is not science.
All that having been said, philosophy is certainly about arguments, and you are free to argue for or against Kant's value as a philosopher. But radical arguments require extensive knowledge of the field one argues about. In fact, that is why universities exist, and have existed since Plato's own "Academia": to
help with acquiring this knowledge, whether about classical logic or "what or who created the universe".
It's not impossible to acquire the knowledge outside of academia - far from it, as Wittgenstein himself showed.
But the issue remains, the knowledge
must be acquired, the experience
must be accrued. And one cannot argue about philosophy or God, without this foundation any more than one can play a trombone without having the proper lungs. Whilst if one
does have the lungs, one usually goes to play in an orchestra, rather than practice in the park. The same, I would think, applies for philosophy and this forum. :)
Renfield,
That was a nice summary. :)
But how does that make Kant's argument against suicide correct ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 02, 2009, 05:19:29 AM
Renfield,
That was a nice summary. :)
But how does that make Kant's argument against suicide correct ?
Now
that is a different question.
I never purported to
support his specific argument, or even his entire theory (finding it enjoyable is not necessarily equivalent to finding it valid): I only mentioned it after
Guido said he'd never encountered an argument for the immorality of suicide before.
That is not to say I do not have an opinion on Kant's argument, but this I would prefer not to put forward for the moment, with your permission. If you want a "yes or no" type of answer, no, I don't agree with suicide being something we shouldn't do because it's immoral.
(Though note my wording.)
Edit: And thank you. :)
Hi Renfield... (you're welcome)
Quote from: Renfield on January 02, 2009, 04:30:36 AMAll that having been said, philosophy is certainly about arguments, and you are free to argue for or against Kant's value as a philosopher. But radical arguments require extensive knowledge of the field one argues about. In fact, that is why universities exist, and have existed since Plato's own "Academia": to help with acquiring this knowledge, whether about classical logic or "what or who created the universe".
It's not impossible to acquire the knowledge outside of academia - far from it, as Wittgenstein himself showed.
But the issue remains, the knowledge must be acquired, the experience must be accrued. And one cannot argue about philosophy or God, without this foundation any more than one can play a trombone without having the proper lungs. Whilst if one does have the lungs, one usually goes to play in an orchestra, rather than practice in the park. The same, I would think, applies for philosophy and this forum. :)
Some questions on this:
As a student of philosophy how often did you personally find the complexity and obscurity of the writing get in the way of communicating a point ? Are philosophers almost always bad writers ? Why do they often take a concept that could be explained with one sentence and then extend it into a page ?
Perhaps I'm a simpleton but to me good writing is direct, concise, and to the point. Of course I am NOT including the sciences and technology here; obviously they require their own specialized terminology.
Of course at times it is important for a philosopher to answer a past essay in detail or develop an argument in a technical way so that future readers will not question the logic of the argument needlessly and to invent your own terminology so that others do not confuse your arguments within the philosophical discourse... BUT, I still think that most philosophers go too far.
Have we been brainwashed to think that a great work must be difficult to read ?
Quote from: Renfield on January 02, 2009, 06:25:50 AMThat is not to say I do not have an opinion on Kant's argument, but this I would prefer not to put forward for the moment, with your permission.
If you want a "yes or no" type of answer, no, I don't agree with suicide being something we shouldn't do because it's immoral.
Here are the two main arguments arguments against suicide that I've read:
1. Suicide is immoral and unethical because many of the reasons for committing suicide – such as depression, emotional pain, or economic hardship – are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making changes to some aspects of one's life.
2. Suicide is immoral and unethical because we as individuals are not islands; we have responsibiliies/duties to our families or society. (the functionalist view)
*********
Do you accept these arguments. And if not, why not.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 02, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
Here are the two main arguments arguments against suicide that I've read:
1. Suicide is immoral and unethical because many of the reasons for committing suicide – such as depression, emotional pain, or economic hardship – are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making changes to some aspects of one's life.
2. Suicide is immoral and unethical because we as individuals are not islands; we have responsibiliies/duties to our families or society. (the functionalist view)
*********
Do you accept these arguments. And if not, why not.
I don't consider it immoral or unethical. However, I'd like to see folks interested in it to stop babbling about it and just move on and do it.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 02, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
(1) As a student of philosophy how often did you personally find the complexity and obscurity of the writing get in the way of communicating a point ? (2) Are philosophers almost always bad writers ? (3) Why do they often take a concept that could be explained with one sentence and then extend it into a page ?
Perhaps I'm a simpleton but to me good writing is direct, concise, and to the point. (4) Of course I am NOT including the sciences and technology here; obviously they require their own specialized terminology.
(5) Of course at times it is important for a philosopher to answer a past essay in detail or develop an argument in a technical way so that future readers will not question the logic of the argument needlessly and to invent your own terminology so that others do not confuse your arguments within the philosophical discourse... (6) BUT, I still think that most philosophers go too far.
(7) Have we been brainwashed to think that a great work must be difficult to read ?
[My numbering.]
(1): Not often.
However, a crucial aspect of the training one receives in being a philosophy student (especially one with my interest in logic) is in examining, outlining, analysing and critically assessing arguments. And since this is done impartially (or done wrong), I do not often go into the process of wondering how what I'm reading
could have been written, either: I work with what I have.
(Of course, part of one's capacity to do analytic philosophy is being able to transcribe arguments in a clearer form. That, however, is done post hoc, and is not comparable with putting the arguments on paper in the first place.)
(2): The above having been said, many philosophers, most often in ethics and particularly from the French and, perhaps surprisingly, the post-Enlightenment British tradition, are very wordy. A number of them are self-indulgent, and some of them rather "holier-than-thou".
However, the majority of great philosophers, even if some of them are great "in spite of their way of writing, rather than because of it" (a very apt comment I once read), had clear
ideas. Nietzsche and Heidegger, to name a couple of "problem cases" are not in the majority; likewise Mill, who had better ideas than he gave them credit for in his rather preachy way of writing (in
Utilitarianism, at least).
(3): The answer here is what you note for "science and technology" in
(4), and elaborate in
(5).
Most philosophers (likely all of them) seek to elucidate their concepts in such a way as to ensure their concepts are both
understood, and
not confused with similar but different positions - much like composers who have to prove that they are not copying Beethoven (or Debussy), before people will devote their attention to them in earnest.
Also, the more complicated the subject matter, and the greater the leap forward one philosophical work represents (and Kant is a prime example of this), the more terminology often needs to be introduced to highlight the structure of the argument, and/or its conclusion.
If you do read, for example, the
Groundworks on the Metaphysics of Morals, you might see that Kant does not wantonly introduce new terms for no reason: he actually creates a system with terms that interrelate in such a way as to establish the conclusion. And to communicate that system, he
had (remember, Kant was before Frege) no way to do this apart from using natural language.
Natural language being what it is, the result was his having to not only introduce many terms, but also explain
how he uses the words, which is almost always not the "common sense" of any of them, certainly in English, and likely in German, too.
Just look at how much text it took me to simply explain (what I perceive as) the rationale behind the system, and imagine how much text it would require for someone to establish a logical system with natural language, explain the sense of each word, proceed to extend that system, then recap to make the structure clear (which Kant does, very helpfully - like in sonata form - as does Wittgenstein in the
Tractatus), then extend again, etc. By then you'll have arrived at the length of Kant's published works, if not (likely) much more.
I'll even go as far as claim that Kant was tremendously succinct for his era, given how he even included detailed explanations of every single concept of his in his work (or at least in the Groundworks, which I have read). Wittgenstein avoided this (in the Tractatus) by taking advantage of already-established forms (mathematical notation, the logical ordering of his arguments as 1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2, etc.), that Kant did not have available, to make sense, and the
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is still a highly demanding work to read.
(6) One can only really know one's explanation of a concept is sufficiently enlightening after it has been published, and by then (particularly in times before philosophical periodicals were invented) it might well be impossible to have a second chance.
Thus, philosophers would (and still often do) err on the side of caution. Under the above premise, can you blame them?
(7) If that is equivalent to saying "do we feel something great must be difficult to read?", then yes. It's relatively easy to make an educated guess on why that is, given how most people feel that the great must also be unapproachable, to satisfy their insecurity.
After all, if something great is not
difficult to read, or difficult to listen to, (classical music is an example of a similar case)
then why am I not also
doing great things, I who am simple? I need a way to feel that the great is beyond me, to know my place in the world.Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 02, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
Here are the two main arguments arguments against suicide that I've read:
1. Suicide is immoral and unethical because many of the reasons for committing suicide – such as depression, emotional pain, or economic hardship – are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making changes to some aspects of one's life.
2. Suicide is immoral and unethical because we as individuals are not islands; we have responsibiliies/duties to our families or society. (the functionalist view)
*********
Do you accept these arguments. And if not, why not.
Regarding suicide, I will still ask for your permission not to discuss my personal opinion on the topic: partly because it involves a number of intricate sub-questions well beyond the scope of even this highly "off-topic" thread, and partly because this is the turf of normative ethicists specialised (or in any affair accomplished) in the subject, which I would not want to pretend I belong in - or intrude on - for the present.
Suffice to say, the answer first has to address what "moral" means to begin with (and if such a thing can exist), then examine criteria through which something is characterised as moral, and if or how suicide could satisfy them.
Even answers like the two above, that sound simple, follow from a number of
implicit assumptions concerning the other issues I just raised. :)
Quote from: Renfield on January 02, 2009, 04:30:36 AM
But the issue remains, the knowledge must be acquired, the experience must be accrued. And one cannot argue about philosophy or God, without this foundation any more than one can play a trombone without having the proper lungs. Whilst if one does have the lungs, one usually goes to play in an orchestra, rather than practice in the park. The same, I would think, applies for philosophy and this forum. :)
I disagree with the idea that formal knowledge in the academic sense is required to reason philosophically. You do make a good point that orchestras are the place to find most of the good players. That's where I'd look if I wanted to find a bunch of them at once. The best thing I think is to read widely to get a sense of what separates philosophical reasoning from other endeavors. Concerning Gödel and logicism, you didn't have to wait for that to see philosophy as not being primarily concerned with mathematical formalism.
Quote from: drogulus on January 02, 2009, 01:36:30 PM
I disagree with the idea that formal knowledge in the academic sense is required to reason philosophically. You do make a good point that orchestras are the place to find most of the good players. That's where I'd look if I wanted to find a bunch of them at once. The best thing I think is to read widely to get a sense of what separates philosophical reasoning from other endeavors. Concerning Gödel and logicism, you didn't have to wait for that to see philosophy as not being primarily concerned with mathematical formalism.
No, but it's an excellent proof of why it couldn't, even if people tried. And best of all, it makes no external assumptions.
As for what you disagree with, I never said anything of the such. I said you must know and understand the argument. Reading widely will not suffice, if you do not actively engage with the material in a critical way, don't you agree?
It's like saying reading enough Dostoyevsky will make you a distinguished Russian writer, to an extent. :)
Quote from: Renfield on January 02, 2009, 01:41:08 PM
No, but it's an excellent proof of why it couldn't, even if people tried. And best of all, it makes no external assumptions.
As for what you disagree with, I never said anything of the such. I said you must know and understand the argument. Reading widely will not suffice, if you do not actively engage with the material in a critical way, don't you agree?
It's like saying reading enough Dostoyevsky will make you a distinguished Russian writer, to an extent. :)
That wouldn't be reading widely. Anyway I'm not trying to give a formula for producing a philosopher. I'd like people who are interested to plunge in and do the arguments, follow leads from other posters, and build up knowledge. Over time my own views have undergone changes in this way. People have widely varying aptitude for this. I've read stories about introductory courses in philosophy where a significant proportion of the students can't seem to grasp the point at the most basic level.
I see philosophical thinking as like historical thinking in a way. Some people have something like a timeline in their heads, and everything that happens gets slotted in along with some idea of the significance of it. Other people see everything as "one damn thing after another" as the saying goes. That's the aptitude part of it. Some people at GMG have more interest than aptitude. That's OK with me. People enjoy classical music at different levels, too. Like me, for example. I enjoy classical music at a different level.
:D
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 01, 2009, 02:51:39 PM
Drogulus,
A different angle for a moment: Don't you think that the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens have an important blindspot and that is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.
Let me take another bite at this. What they have in common is opposition to treating the core set of religious propositions as true. That's atheism in a nutshell. Something that many people want to believe is true (perhaps they succeed in believing it) passes no reasonable truth test. That's a negative thesis. It isn't blind to make this the center of the argument, it
is the argument. Then they argue other points, like how this state of affairs came about and what the consequences are.
Quote from: drogulus on January 02, 2009, 02:16:54 PM
I'd like people who are interested to plunge in and do the arguments, follow leads from other posters, and build up knowledge.
That would only work if you can guarantee that this "plunging in" will make sense, and have a reference. If you simply have a number of people, none of whom possesses, let's call it "practised knowledge", trading views, that's not going to work by a long shot.
And there's a qualitative difference made by knowing how to
do this "argument" thing, to begin with. :)
Finally, if nothing else, most of the views I see in these sort of threads are generally ancient, and can be superseded or extended significantly simply be opening a basic textbook - let alone a real philosophical work. So even the educational point is somewhat mooted.
Quote from: drogulus on January 02, 2009, 02:16:54 PM
People have widely varying aptitude for this. I've read stories about introductory courses in philosophy where a significant proportion of the students can't seem to grasp the point at the most basic level.
Believe me, I live these stories daily. ;) I've had someone tell me they switched to psychology, because while philosophy is looking for answers, "psychology has it right. And I know what's right, by now." Come to think of it, this reminds me of certain discussions in this forum. :D
Quote from: drogulus on January 02, 2009, 02:16:54 PM
I see philosophical thinking as like historical thinking in a way. Some people have something like a timeline in their heads, and everything that happens gets slotted in along with some idea of the significance of it. Other people see everything as "one damn thing after another" as the saying goes. That's the aptitude part of it. Some people at GMG have more interest than aptitude. That's OK with me. People enjoy classical music at different levels, too. Like me, for example. I enjoy classical music at a different level. :D
Fair enough. But I still cannot, personally, help but consider it a waste of both time on behalf of those plodding in philosophy without the necessary means of engagement with the subject (through natural aptitude, intentional grounding, or both), and "forum space", if you will.
This is a classical music forum. Am I also entitled to open a connectionist cognitive modelling thread?
Quote from: Renfield on January 02, 2009, 01:29:55 PM
(2): The above having been said, many philosophers, most often in ethics and particularly from the French and, perhaps surprisingly, the post-Enlightenment British tradition, are very wordy. A number of them are self-indulgent, and some of them rather "holier-than-thou".
However, the majority of great philosophers, even if some of them are great "in spite of their way of writing, rather than because of it" (a very apt comment I once read), had clear ideas. Nietzsche and Heidegger, to name a couple of "problem cases" are not in the majority; likewise Mill, who had better ideas than he gave them credit for in his rather preachy way of writing (in Utilitarianism, at least).
We should distinguish between: "Not easy to grasp" and "bad writer". Nietzsche was, in many ways, one of the best writers ever - not only in philosophy but in German literature. Heidegger, however, is German academic writing at its worst... to the point of insulting the reader with his seemingly willfully difficult writing where the form turns content into meaninglessness. Especially with Germans and the French (the latter I can't read in the original, admittedly), I have lost all respect for anyone who cannot write. If you can't say simply what you mean, then chances are you have nothing to say. Even the most difficult concepts can be explained in elegant simplicity. (It just takes work.) And if you have something to say but can't be bothered to cast it into form that is acceptable, then you don't deserve to be heard.
Instead complexity was cherished as a goal in itself -- and academic circles have bought into it for very long. It's like Michelin-star cooks who shit over their food -- and then say: yes, it's very difficult and demanding to discern the greatness of the food's taste.
That's why it is so great! [Well, I may have gone overboard just now... but this really tapped into some reservoir of anger, apparently. Perhaps because I feel I was once duped into that, too... and because of the incredible effort it took to teach myself how to write properly again. If you can't tell from this... well, I'm not making use of those skills right now. It's still too early in the morning. ;) ]
Quote from: drogulus on January 02, 2009, 02:39:49 PM
Let me take another bite at this. What they have in common is opposition to treating the core set of religious propositions as true. That's atheism in a nutshell. Something that many people want to believe is true (perhaps they succeed in believing it) passes no reasonable truth test. That's a negative thesis. It isn't blind to make this the center of the argument, it is the argument. Then they argue other points, like how this state of affairs came about and what the consequences are.
Drogulus,
So do you also agree with Dawkins that theology shouldn't even be considered a subject ?
Is there any value in studying the writings of Aquinas, Tillich or Niebuhr ? Or should one simply go straight to the true 'intellectual elite', like Plato, Willard Van Orman Quine, Aristotle, Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc ?
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 04:41:13 PM
What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
Epicuous,
You might like this, hot off the press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/03/buddhism-atheism
:)
"Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching."
Concrete and solar answer.
Quote from: epicous on January 03, 2009, 09:37:09 PM
"Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching."
True but this could be said of much of human endeavour.
The universe is existence. Its properties and structure are very likely the result of a collapse into stability and therefore did not need to be created. If there are other universes, I don't think we'll ever need to worry about them but I believe they will all be boringly similar to our own. This may due to mathematics. Now I wonder where that came from. ;)
Drogulus,
Quote from: drogulus on January 02, 2009, 02:39:49 PMWhat they have in common is opposition to treating the core set of religious propositions as true. That's atheism in a nutshell. Something that many people want to believe is true (perhaps they succeed in believing it) passes no reasonable truth test. That's a negative thesis. It isn't blind to make this the center of the argument, it is the argument. Then they argue other points, like how this state of affairs came about and what the consequences are.
O.k. fair enough but how would you answer the following:
"Atheism is for the best part an option of the educated elite. Go spend some time among the poor and uneducated. You may observe, as I have, that there are simple folk who not only derive a sense of dignity from their religion but also a decent moral code about being kind to their fellow beings. Others of course draw different lessons and may become religious bigots... Religion is a complex phenomenon, and its reduction to its evangelical or fundamentalist parody is intellectually dishonest. More fundamentally it betrays woeful ignorance of the human psyche"
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 11, 2009, 05:57:03 PM
Drogulus,
O.k. fair enough but how would you answer the following:
"Atheism is for the best part an option of the educated elite. Go spend some time among the poor and uneducated. You may observe, as I have, that there are simple folk who not only derive a sense of dignity from their religion but also a decent moral code about being kind to their fellow beings. Others of course draw different lessons and may become religious bigots... Religion is a complex phenomenon, and its reduction to its evangelical or fundamentalist parody is intellectually dishonest. More fundamentally it betrays woeful ignorance of the human psyche"
Strictly speaking, Religion is intellectually dishonest in all its forms. But how do you want one to respond to this? It doesn't raise a question, it states truisms. Except the "elite" part. In post-modern societies, most people don't bother thinking about God and religion, these days. They are default-Christians or, in the communist countries, default-Atheists. The poor and uneducated, in that rather dim, patronizing view, get their moral code from wherever they get it from. ABOVE. Whether that's the Nazi Party or Oprah or the Pope doesn't really matter. And I want to see you talk to the rubble in Liverpool or Berlin and ask them about the "dignity" they feel, through the presence of God in mankind. Ha! And how kind are they, to their fellow man? At that level, Religion can be instrumentalized for good or bad -- 'moral behavior' or suicide bombings, at the extremes. But surely that doesn't speak to the existence of religion... looked at in isolation it's rather the point Marx made (albeit simplistically and ultimately wrongly)... You know... "Opium for the masses" and such.
Quote from: jlaurson on January 12, 2009, 02:38:06 AMStrictly speaking, Religion is intellectually dishonest in all its forms. But how do you want one to respond to this? It doesn't raise a question, it states truisms. Except the "elite" part. In post-modern societies, most people don't bother thinking about God and religion, these days. They are default-Christians or, in the communist countries, default-Atheists. The poor and uneducated, in that rather dim, patronizing view, get their moral code from wherever they get it from. ABOVE. Whether that's the Nazi Party or Oprah or the Pope doesn't really matter. And I want to see you talk to the rubble in Liverpool or Berlin and ask them about the "dignity" they feel, through the presence of God in mankind. Ha! And how kind are they, to their fellow man? At that level, Religion can be instrumentalized for good or bad -- 'moral behavior' or suicide bombings, at the extremes. But surely that doesn't speak to the existence of religion... looked at in isolation it's rather the point Marx made (albeit simplistically and ultimately wrongly)... You know... "Opium for the masses" and such.
Jens,
For the record, I reject ALL religions but I still want to leave open the possibility that there could exist some kind of supernatural being.
Over the past few years (since the resurgent atheism of Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens), I've noticed that whenever religion itself is criticized, the academics invariably roll out William James'
The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (1902) in defense of it, claiming that religion (and religious experience) itself cannot be dismissed so easily by the atheists and agnostics.
Are we perhaps missing something here ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 12, 2009, 06:05:02 AM
For the record, I reject ALL religions but I still want to leave open the possibility that there could exist some kind of supernatural being.
Yes, I remember Freud having something to say about "your kind" [ please take no offense, for I hardly mean any! ;) ]:
Civ. & its Discontents, Chapter II
"...It is still more humiliating to discover how large a number of people living to-day, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions. One would like to mix among the ranks of the believers in order to meet these philosophers, who think they can rescue the God of religion by replacing him with an impersonal, shadowy and abstract principle, and to address them with the warning words: 'Though shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!'..."
Quote
Over the past few years (since the resurgent atheism of Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens), I've noticed that whenever religion itself is criticized, the academics invariably roll out William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (1902) in defense of it, claiming that religion (and religious experience) itself cannot be dismissed so easily by the atheists and agnostics.
Are we perhaps missing something here ?
Do we need James to figure out that religion cannot be easily dismissed? For most cultures, no matter how secular they have since become, it is still tantamount to the equivalent of "culture". We are, if sometimes only in small ways and possibly ever decreasing ways, formed in how we think, write, build, compose -- by religion.
IMHO as it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a creator an atheist is just as guilty as a religious follower in being bloody minded, an open mind is surly the way to go.
Quote from: Andante on January 12, 2009, 02:59:17 PM
IMHO as it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a creator an atheist is just as guilty as a religious follower in being bloody minded, an open mind is surly the way to go.
According to this open-minded people don't decide issues on the best available evidence, they refuse to decide issues when the favored proposition looks like a loser: Either God exists
or you have to keep an open mind.
::) Are all unprovable beliefs therefore to be treated as factual? The point has been made in this and other threads a number of times now, but here you see the imperviousness to argument that believers protect themselves with.
Patience is a virtue, though, so one more time:
The unprovability of nonexistence is not an argument
for the existence of
anything. For that you need an affirmative argument.
Most atheists do
not take the position that you can disprove all unknown beings. They probably realize, like I do, that it's not necessary to do that. The utter lack of affirmative evidence does all the work needed to make existence claims completely untenable. All the believer has left are the medieval arguments for
a priori belief like a perfect thing must exist, everything must have a cause, etc. Unless these arguments look good to you, the way anything looks edible to a starving person, you have no place to go.
In such circumstances, open-mindedness is a dodge, a covert attempt to avoid a verdict. Would it be the best policy if the existence arguments were actually
good?
Eric, my comments in bold.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 11, 2009, 05:57:03 PM
"Atheism is for the best part an option of the educated elite. Not sure what "elite" has to do with this. I can see there being a relationship between atheism and education - haven't yet met an atheist homeless person on the Houston metro system - but not necessarily out of "superiority." But yes, I suppose it is for the best part an option of the educated elite, because let's face it: atheism is not easy. Intellectually, it's hard to say "I reject the views of 87% of America, and here's why." And when your family is religious, and/or all your friends and teachers are religious, and/or you are raised in a church, then it takes a lot of time, thinking, effort, and serious questioning and reading and soul-searching to become an atheist. No wonder it's not so common! Go spend some time among the poor and uneducated. You may observe, as I have, that there are simple folk who not only derive a sense of dignity from their religion but also a decent moral code about being kind to their fellow beings. How condescending! "Simple folk." That's disgusting. This passage seems to imply that people who are too stupid to be atheists should be left alone. What if I reject that ELITIST claim? Others of course draw different lessons and may become religious bigots... Religion is a complex phenomenon, and its reduction to its evangelical or fundamentalist parody is intellectually dishonest. Well, its reduction to evangelism and fundamentalism is a profoundly important force in American politics, and needs to be deterred/destroyed. More fundamentally it betrays woeful ignorance of the human psyche" People need spiritual fulfillment. Sure. People need to feel a sense of purpose. Sure. People need "a decent moral code." Sure. But I submit to you that religion is not the best approach to those three problems. Do "poor and uneducated" people have the fortitude to see the secular alternative? They've probably never been shown it; but, at any rate, why be so condescending to them, so arrogant about their "simple folk" ideas, if we have something better to show them?
Quote from: drogulus on January 12, 2009, 03:56:24 PM
According to this open-minded people don't decide issues on the best available evidence... ................. .............
In such circumstances, open-mindedness is a dodge, a covert attempt to avoid a verdict. Would it be the best policy if the existence arguments were actually good?
OK drogulus ,, So is our UV purely meaningless or could there have been a Creator?
And open mindedness is not a covert attempt to avoid a verdict, just maybe we are not capable of understanding and how can it be covert when it is in the open?
Quote from: jlaurson on January 12, 2009, 06:25:36 AM[ please take no offense, for I hardly mean any! ;) ]:
Of course not, Jens.. :)
QuoteCiv. & its Discontents, Chapter II
"...It is still more humiliating to discover how large a number of people living to-day, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions. One would like to mix among the ranks of the believers in order to meet these philosophers, who think they can rescue the God of religion by replacing him with an impersonal, shadowy and abstract principle, and to address them with the warning words: 'Though shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!'..."
I like that Freud passage. But was he addressing the average agnostic or eminent philosophers as well ?
A point on Karl Marx:
Here is a good recent article on the "New Atheists":
Forget Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. These atheists du jour have nothing on the most famous anti-theist of all time. Good old Karl Marx is still the most eloquent and thoughtful nonbeliever, and his "religion is the opium of the masses" is still the best one-liner in the business.
But as famous as that zinger is, it's too bad that most people have never read the sentences that come before and after it. Marx was a whole lot more sympathetic to religious faith than most people give him credit for. He saw religion as a source of solace that should only be abolished until the sources of people's pain -- an unfair economic system -- had been eradicated.
Here is the full piece: Asking The Right God Question (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez6-2008oct06,0,7514938.column)
I'ts interesting to contemplate - at least for me - how history and the human psyche would have developed if the God Virus had never been postulated in the first place.
Atheism is the opium of the elites. ;D
Quote from: Andante on January 12, 2009, 02:59:17 PM
IMHO as it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a creator an atheist is just as guilty as a religious follower in being bloody minded, an open mind is surly the way to go.
Who says it's
impossible? Maybe it is, maybe not. We don't know.
When you don't know/can't prove something 100 % it doesn't mean the situation is 50/50. The existence of God is EXTREMELY unlikely simply because he would have to be more complex than the universe he created. Who created God? How improbably it is to have a higher being with all that power without a creator?
Religious people say God is allmighty and all knowing. These things contradict each other! If God knows everything he knows what he will do tomorrow. But that means he can't change his mind and do something else! So how can he be allmighty?
Why did God create so LARGE universe? All he is interesting is if we do sin and stuff like that. Why did he create billions of galaxies? Does not make sense. Just imagine all the stars, planets, pulsars, asteroid fields, black holes etc. God is interested if YOU go to church every Sunday! What a lunatic! Why create atheist people? Why create people with WRONG religion? Why? It's all lunatic! God belongs to mental house. He should create one for himself. Perhaps churches are in fact God's mental houses? That almost makes sense! ;D
Charles Darwin gave us a truly brilliant theory of evolution. It explains beautifully how all the breathtaking life on Earth was developed from nothing. Before you criticise the theory of evolution be sure you really understand it! According to Richard Dawkins many don't understand. That's sad. The explanation of the whole universe and it's existence is perhaps not darwinistic. God is a very bad explanation, lazy. Religion tend to say it's ok not to try to understand things. That's why I hate religion so much. I am far too intelligent for that. I have NEVER believed in God, not even in my childhood. I have always understood how silly the idea of God is (in our age). We know too much to think God's existence makes sense.
Yeah, I can't prove God doesn't exist. In my mind the probability of God's existence is a very small number, perhaps 0.00000000001 %. That is a damn good justification for being an atheist!
Believing in God is silly. Intelligent people do it because 1) they were indoctrinated in childhood (outracious brainwashing!) and 2) Religion sadly has an insanely strong status in society.
Religion is dangerous. Religion is a virus exploting the malfunctions of brain. All people free of that virus should promote reason and hope for secular tomorrow.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2009, 11:28:57 AM
Who says it's impossible? Maybe it is, maybe not. We don't know.
When you don't know/can't prove something 100 % it doesn't mean the situation is 50/50. The existence of God is EXTREMELY unlikely simply because he would have to be more complex than the universe he created. Who created God? How improbably it is to have a higher being with all that power without a creator?
etc.etc.
We may be technically on the same side of the coin, but it should be pointed out that the above is an example of a--let's put this very kindly--"not very helpful" contribution to this discussion. Even in an internet forum we could try to do better than these not terribly sophisticated arguments, no? Gross simplification, though perfectly acceptable when talking about Mstislav Rostropovich, is counterproductive to all involved in matters religion and religious. (As they say: generates much heat, no light.)
And yes, we
do know that it's impossible to prove a negative, not the least because we set up the (our) rules with which to prove things in the first place. You can only infer a negative.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2009, 11:28:57 AM
Yeah, I can't prove God doesn't exist. In my mind the probability of God's existence is a very small number, perhaps 0.00000000001 %.
That little (1) could come back to bite you in the butt. 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2009, 11:28:57 AM
Charles Darwin gave us a truly brilliant theory of evolution. It explains beautifully how all the breathtaking life on Earth was developed from nothing.
Darwin and evolution is silent on how life "developed from nothing" it presupposes the existance of some form of life. Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.
QuoteYeah, I can't prove God doesn't exist. In my mind the probability of God's existence is a very small number, perhaps 0.00000000001 %. That is a damn good justification for being an atheist!
Believing in God is silly. Intelligent people do it because 1) they were indoctrinated in childhood (outracious brainwashing!) and 2) Religion sadly has an insanely strong status in society.
Religion is dangerous. Religion is a virus exploting the malfunctions of brain. All people free of that virus should promote reason and hope for secular tomorrow.
Why is religion ubiquitous among all pre-modern societies? Largely because it is an extremely powerful tool for promoting cooperation within groups and creating larger group boundaries than those of simple kinship. In the Darwinian competition among cultures for the past 10,000 years, those with strong religious bonds have proven fitter than those without.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2009, 11:28:57 AM
Who says it's impossible? Maybe it is, maybe not. We don't know.
Why did God create so LARGE universe?
Why do you assume that there is only one UV?? Also do not confuse a creator with the GOD of religions,
[perhaps some form of intelligence would have been a better label than creator] I state now that I am in total agreement that religion is a man made crock but that does not mean that the Cosmos purely popped into existence and was made out of nothing! Until science can answer that then we do not know.
RE: percentages
It's a futile effort to assign probabilities to the likelihood of God's existence.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 13, 2009, 11:59:00 AM
That little (1) could come back to bite you in the butt. 8)
My butt is ready.
Quote from: Andante on January 13, 2009, 12:40:05 PM
Why do you assume that there is only one UV?? Also do not confuse a creator with the GOD of religions, [perhaps some form of intelligence would have been a better label than creator] I state now that I am in total agreement that religion is a man made crock but that does not mean that the Cosmos purely popped into existence and was made out of nothing! Until science can answer that then we do not know.
I don't assume that.
Religious God is "stupid idea". Einsteinian God is different story.
It's difficult to explain how the universe popped into existence but it's even more difficult to explain a maker for it!
Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2009, 10:06:50 AM
My butt is ready.
Sorry, but I have to turn down your generous offer. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
It's difficult to explain how the universe popped into existence but it's even more difficult to explain a maker for it!
I agree with that. Furthermore, I am rather annoyed by the common riposte that God could be "simple", as a solution for this regression-issue, as that strikes me as disingenuous wordplay. It's ridiculous to suggest that that is, in any shape or form, a real solution. Naturally, the theist is correct in saying that the complexity-question is no death blow to the existence of God, as the nature of God could be so fundamentally different from ours that our rationality is insufficient to grasp it. Of course, this disqualifies the theist's argument, as well. If the nature of God cannot be described in any meaningful, quantifiable fashion, it's the height of dishonesty to claim God's alleged "simplicity" as a solution to a human-conceived, logical dilemma.
If I am to take that argument seriously, the theist would have to reconcile God's apparent complexity (emotions, willingness to create, personal, invested interest in His followers, the fact that He's intelligent) with his necessary simplicity. It's no good to dismiss the question as a blinkered rationalistic materialism, as that very dismissal kills any force the theist's argument had in the first place. How can the simple God be a solution, if it is merely stated that He is simple, however still incomprehensible. I have always likened it to the situation where you're faced with a seemingly insoluble problem, and instead of admitting to ignorance, you make up a solution, outside of the parameters of the problem, and then shut down all inquiry into the nature of that solution. Or, algebraically, the phenomenon X is difficult to account for; Y is postulated as its cause; oh... and we have no idea what Y really is, but it's a good solution, trust us, parsimony is
intrinsic to Y.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I don't assume that.
Religious God is "stupid idea". Einsteinian God is different story.
It's difficult to explain how the universe popped into existence but it's even more difficult to explain a maker for it!
Well, both questions seem equally difficult to me. :)
Well said, Daidalos.
Do you still believe that ignosticism is the best position ?
Definition:
The view that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 14, 2009, 11:20:10 AM
Well said, Daidalos.
Do you still believe that ignosticism is the best position ?
Definition:
The view that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers.
Insofar as I think that - in the absence of a comprehensible definition of God - discussions concerning the existence or non-existence of the aforementioned entity are meaningless, yes I still believe that ignosticism is the best position. I have explained my reasoning in the past, but it boils down to the insufficiency of our language, logic and science to encompass the idea of God (as commonly put forward by theists), therefore it becomes absurd to talk of God in any human-conceived context since He, by the theist's definition, transcends all such notions. This position would no longer be relevant if a proper definition could be supplied, in which case discussions and arguments about God's existence could be entertained.
Functionally, I'm still an atheist, since I lack a belief in God, however I'm less concerned with proving the nonexistence of God than I'm with confronting bad arguments for (or against) Him.
Quote from: Daidalos on January 14, 2009, 09:48:35 PM
Insofar as I think that - in the absence of a comprehensible definition of God - discussions concerning the existence or non-existence of the aforementioned entity are meaningless, yes I still believe that ignosticism is the best position. I have explained my reasoning in the past, but it boils down to the insufficiency of our language, logic and science to encompass the idea of God (as commonly put forward by theists), therefore it becomes absurd to talk of God in any human-conceived context since He, by the theist's definition, transcends all such notions. This position would no longer be relevant if a proper definition could be supplied, in which case discussions and arguments about God's existence could be entertained.
Functionally, I'm still an atheist, since I lack a belief in God, however I'm less concerned with proving the nonexistence of God than I'm with confronting bad arguments for (or against) Him.
You state the case against the simplicity argument very well. I disagree about language, logic and science having any insufficiency related to discussions of these questions. It does make sense to discuss them just in order to point out that there are propositions so inadequate that it can be made to appear that there are no means to evaluate them. Nevertheless some judgment should be made on how these ideas should be treated, and the inability to find any information to support the existence of supernatural phenomena, as well as the incoherence of explanations for why that is, makes it necessary to engage in a form of defensive philosophizing. We have to explain that it isn't a weakness of logic or science that some entities can't be found, and that for the time being it's good enough to say that they aren't there. That's not a failure of understanding, it's a failure of the original proposition.
We will never have an exhaustive list of all the propositions that aren't true along with detailed explanations of why. I can't imagine why that would be a weakness of science and logic. There would have to be another way of knowing things, and there isn't. The direct injection of truths without confirmation is a fantasy. All knowledge of the commonplace personal sort we get just by being alive and having minds all the way up to the most rigorous scientific variety is attained in the same way. We reason about what we experience. That's science and philosophy and everyday life. There's nothing inadequate about it.
In discussion the meaninglessness of God propositions, we should therefore make this distinction: The meaninglessness of God propositions (or other similar types where the same general questions are raised) doesn't imply the meaninglessness of discussing why this is so.
Quote from: drogulus on January 15, 2009, 01:13:40 PM
You state the case against the simplicity argument very well. I disagree about language, logic and science having any insufficiency related to discussions of these questions. It does make sense to discuss them just in order to point out that there are propositions so inadequate that it can be made to appear that there are no means to evaluate them. Nevertheless some judgment should be made on how these ideas should be treated, and the inability to find any information to support the existence of supernatural phenomena, as well as the incoherence of explanations for why that is, makes it necessary to engage in a form of defensive philosophizing. We have to explain that it isn't a weakness of logic or science that some entities can't be found, and that for the time being it's good enough to say that they aren't there. That's not a failure of understanding, it's a failure of the original proposition.
We will never have an exhaustive list of all the propositions that aren't true along with detailed explanations of why. I can't imagine why that would be a weakness of science and logic. There would have to be another way of knowing things, and there isn't. The direct injection of truths without confirmation is a fantasy. All knowledge of the commonplace personal sort we get just by being alive and having minds all the way up to the most rigorous scientific variety is attained in the same way. We reason about what we experience. That's science and philosophy and everyday life. There's nothing inadequate about it.
In discussion the meaninglessness of God propositions, we should therefore make this distinction: The meaninglessness of God propositions (or other similar types where the same general questions are raised) doesn't imply the meaninglessness of discussing why this is so.
There might be a slight misunderstanding going on here. I'm saying that language, logic and science are inadequate to investigate the God-hypothesis
as presented by theists. Often in these discussions, God is portrayed as a being whose nature transcends all that is mundane, He is beyond human comprehension, and any attempt to grasp His essence with human methodologies are doomed to failure. In principle, I don't think it's inconceivable that there could be
something hopelessly beyond our ken. This God would be immune to all arguments against Him, however it is my contention that this position is self-defeating for the theist.
By defining something as inherently incomprehensible - and I don't think I do the theists a disservice here - they make it meaningless as an argument in any rational discussion. For one thing, it's a conversation-stopper (I think this has been touched upon before), but more fundamentally, the argument undermines itself. A being who is unconstrained by "laws" of nature, logic, or whatever other system a human could imagine, cannot be given any qualitative or quantitative characteristics, for in the absence of our context (our universe, with its laws, and our language and logic) those characteristics are meaningless. How can a being be said to "exist", if the normal parameters of existence, upon which our methodologies rely, do not apply? There is no space, no time; logic doesn't apply, language most definitely does not either. If we cannot ascribe any characteristics to a being, not even "existence", what relevance could it have in any rational discussion?
Naturally, this doesn't disprove the possibility that God could "exist" (whatever that means) in some meta-reality, I only seek to show that God-as-commonly-portrayed is no solution to any problem conceived by humans, for the simple reason that solutions must make sense. It is the equivalent of this amusing cartoon:
(http://www.netcraft.co.il/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png)
The thing is
it might've happened that way, but the nature of that pseudo-solution is such that we can never comprehend it. And here is another point, since we are dealing with subjects beyond human comprehension, God is not the only viable candidate to fill that hole. I could just as easily postulate that the solution to our problem (the universe's existence) is an inscrutable natural principle. We can't understand this principle, but I choose to define it as timeless and intrinsic to existence. Just as with God, this principle cannot be understood, but it is just as adequate (or, as I say, inadequate) to explain anything.
Quote from: Daidalos on January 14, 2009, 09:48:35 PM
He, by the theist's definition, transcends all such notions.
...confronting bad arguments for (or against) Him.
Why the use of masculine pronouns?
Just saw this youtube video. Wanted to post it, just didn't know where, so I guess this thread will do.
God and DNA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY
Quote from: epicous on January 16, 2009, 06:02:56 PM
Why the use of masculine pronouns?
I guess I write in the same idiom as those against whom I argue. It seems only polite.
Quote from: Daidalos on January 13, 2009, 09:41:18 PM
RE: percentages
It's a futile effort to assign probabilities to the likelihood of God's existence.
Futile??? Are you serious? For a person it is a fundamental issue whether he/she believes in God or not. We make lots of important choices in life. In order to make them we have to assign probabilities to very fuzzy, uncertain things. For example: "
Which one of these two job offers do I accept?" There is no clear answer. You need to weight the pros and cons, assign probabilities and make up your mind. If you play right with the probabilities you should make right decisions more often than bad ones.
So, the effort is not futile but
very important.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 14, 2009, 10:25:42 AM
Sorry, but I have to turn down your generous offer. ;D
Pity, we could have had so much fun... ...wait, you are not
Bullgod but Bulldog! The offer wasn't for you! Sorry!
Quote from: Andante on January 14, 2009, 11:15:57 AM
Well, both questions seem equally difficult to me. :)
Well, let them be difficult/unanswered and stop explaining things with God! Lazy people who don't bother to think hard can always be agnostics. I don't understand things fully either but at least I have some sort of idea what the universe is about (I believe it is about logic forcing itself to exist. You can remove energy and matter but how do you remove logic? How to wipe out the equation 2+2=4 ? To my understanding it is impossible and the result of this is the existence of universe(s)). If science someday finds God behind everything, I can always change my mind and say "so, I was completely wrong but for a good, intellectual reason. I am sure God forgives me the use of brain and intelligence since he is the one who gave them to me!"
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2009, 03:22:04 AM
Futile??? Are you serious? For a person it is a fundamental issue whether he/she believes in God or not. We make lots of important choices in life. In order to make them we have to assign probabilities to very fuzzy, uncertain things. For example: "Which one of these two job offers do I accept?" There is no clear answer. You need to weight the pros and cons, assign probabilities and make up your mind. If you play right with the probabilities you should make right decisions more often than bad ones.
So, the effort is not futile but very important.
If you believe you can assign a probability to the likelihood of God's existence, you're delusional. Probabilities are quantitative: if you think you can gauge the chance that God exists, please show me your calculations.
When I roll a die, I can assign a probability to the likelihood that I will roll a 4, likewise when I evaluate a scientific experiment statistically, I can estimate the probability that the the results are due to chance. This is not the case with God.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2009, 03:22:04 AM
Futile??? Are you serious? For a person it is a fundamental issue whether he/she believes in God or not. We make lots of important choices in life. In order to make them we have to assign probabilities to very fuzzy, uncertain things. For example: "Which one of these two job offers do I accept?" There is no clear answer. You need to weight the pros and cons, assign probabilities and make up your mind. If you play right with the probabilities you should make right decisions more often than bad ones.
So, the effort is not futile but very important.
Um what? You actually think that decision making is about assigning probabilities!?!?!
Quote from: Daidalos on January 17, 2009, 04:11:50 AM
If you believe you can assign a probability to the likelihood of God's existence, you're delusional. Probabilities are quantitative: if you think you can gauge the chance that God exists, please show me your calculations.
When I roll a die, I can assign a probability to the likelihood that I will roll a 4, likewise when I evaluate a scientific experiment statistically, I can estimate the probability that the the results are due to chance. This is not the case with God.
I am talking about "fuzzy" probabilities. It's about some sort of estimates like most probably or unlikely. These are not exact numbers.
Quote from: DavidW on January 17, 2009, 06:19:33 AM
Um what? You actually think that decision making is about assigning probabilities!?!?!
What else is it ultimately?
Let's say you decide where you buy a certain CD. You have 2 or 3 option. You might not know it yourself but you are assigning probabilities for poor, decent, good and excellent service. Example:
SHOP 1: poor (~10 %) decent (~20 %) good (~30%) excellent (~40%)
SHOP 2: poor (~40 %) decent (~40 %) good (~20%) excellent (~0%)
SHOP 3: poor (~10 %) decent (~40 %) good (~40%) excellent (~10%)
You "get" these fuzzy numbers from the models you have in your head for these shops based on your experiencies and knowledge, even irrational reasons.
Quote from: Daidalos on January 17, 2009, 12:16:56 AM
I guess I write in the same idiom as those against whom I argue. It seems only polite.
But there are many believers who don't assign a gender...
Quote from: epicous on January 17, 2009, 09:22:07 AM
But there are many believers who don't assign a gender...
I suppose I could call God a She, or It, but mostly that would only serve to confuse, alternatively I would be perceived as facetious. I could always refer to a Prime Mover, a Transcendent Being, but calling it God and Him is quicker and unambiguous, and therefore adequate for the purposes of this discussion. I don't care either way, since I don't believe in "s/he/it" (mild profanity unintended).
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2009, 08:18:45 AM
What else is it ultimately?
Let's say you decide where you buy a certain CD. You have 2 or 3 option. You might not know it yourself but you are assigning probabilities for poor, decent, good and excellent service. Example:
SHOP 1: poor (~10 %) decent (~20 %) good (~30%) excellent (~40%)
SHOP 2: poor (~40 %) decent (~40 %) good (~20%) excellent (~0%)
SHOP 3: poor (~10 %) decent (~40 %) good (~40%) excellent (~10%)
You "get" these fuzzy numbers from the models you have in your head for these shops based on your experiencies and knowledge, even irrational reasons.
Nah I always just go with the cheapest price! :D If a seller screws me over, I simply don't buy from then in the future.
Hello 71db in answer to your postQuote
Well, let them be difficult/unanswered and stop explaining things with God! Lazy people who don't bother to think hard can always be agnostics.
I am not Lazy and I am not explaining things with "God", I note btw that you use a capital G?? and to the contrary it is people that have done a hell of a lot of thinking that come to the conclusion that we just do not know and more than likely never will, now if you want to stick a label [agnostic] onto this group, Fair enough your prerogative.
QuoteI don't understand things fully either but at least I have some sort of idea what the universe is about (I believe it is about logic forcing itself to exist. You can remove energy and matter
Really!! HOW??
Quotebut how do you remove logic? How to wipe out the equation 2+2=4 ?
Again you are falling into the trap that the laws that govern this bit of our UV will apply every where and for all time You are also attributing reason, and an identity to LOGIC??? [/quote]
QuoteTo my understanding it is impossible and the result of this is the existence of universe(s)). If science someday finds God behind everything, I can always change my mind and say "so, I was completely wrong but for a good, intellectual reason. I am sure God forgives me the use of brain and intelligence since he is the one who gave them to me!"
Do not think of God as a entity, You are only going so far, try and push a bit further and you will come to a brick wall, this is because IMHO our brains are limited to what we experience, I consider it is not possible for us to understand..... ::)
Quote from: Daidalos on January 15, 2009, 09:35:15 PM
There might be a slight misunderstanding going on here. I'm saying that language, logic and science are inadequate to investigate the God-hypothesis as presented by theists. Often in these discussions, God is portrayed as a being whose nature transcends all that is mundane, He is beyond human comprehension, and any attempt to grasp His essence with human methodologies are doomed to failure. In principle, I don't think it's inconceivable that there could be something hopelessly beyond our ken. This God would be immune to all arguments against Him, however it is my contention that this position is self-defeating for the theist.
By defining something as inherently incomprehensible - and I don't think I do the theists a disservice here - they make it meaningless as an argument in any rational discussion. For one thing, it's a conversation-stopper (I think this has been touched upon before), but more fundamentally, the argument undermines itself. A being who is unconstrained by "laws" of nature, logic, or whatever other system a human could imagine, cannot be given any qualitative or quantitative characteristics, for in the absence of our context (our universe, with its laws, and our language and logic) those characteristics are meaningless. How can a being be said to "exist", if the normal parameters of existence, upon which our methodologies rely, do not apply? There is no space, no time; logic doesn't apply, language most definitely does not either. If we cannot ascribe any characteristics to a being, not even "existence", what relevance could it have in any rational discussion?
Naturally, this doesn't disprove the possibility that God could "exist" (whatever that means) in some meta-reality, I only seek to show that God-as-commonly-portrayed is no solution to any problem conceived by humans, for the simple reason that solutions must make sense. It is the equivalent of this amusing cartoon:
(http://www.netcraft.co.il/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png)
The thing is it might've happened that way, but the nature of that pseudo-solution is such that we can never comprehend it. And here is another point, since we are dealing with subjects beyond human comprehension, God is not the only viable candidate to fill that hole. I could just as easily postulate that the solution to our problem (the universe's existence) is an inscrutable natural principle. We can't understand this principle, but I choose to define it as timeless and intrinsic to existence. Just as with God, this principle cannot be understood, but it is just as adequate (or, as I say, inadequate) to explain anything.
I see what you're saying and I agree. We each are pointing out that it isn't the fault of reason or science that some propositions can't be put into testable form. And you make a good point that you can apply the "you can't prove it's not there" reasoning to an infinite succession of wholly natural entities. It could get pretty crowded if they all had to exist just because they couldn't be disproved. All those teacups......
;D The point about not being able to define the supposed characteristics of a being beyond reason has been made before by someone.
:P I've tried to point out a few times that sterile concepts about things you can't know play no active role in knowledge. How does saying "you can't know" contribute? Shouldn't we try to build out from what we do know instead of leaping into the dark muttering "it's hopeless, a God did it"?
So the answer to the question what or who created the universe ought to be that creation as it has been explained makes no sense. We don't know how to conceive of an origin for the universe that we observe that preserves the known laws and has a creation in it. That doesn't look like a good theory to me. So we have to go elsewhere. I vote that the answer will have something to do with a rethinking of time that sees it as borderless in the way that space is now seen. Is there a border between space and not-space? No, there isn't. So is there a border between time and not-time? I guess not. So there is a continuity that we don't understand.
Quote from: Bogey on January 17, 2009, 04:43:33 PM
Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me.
Pixel mapping?
;D I don't know what "takes care of" means in this context. I'm just glad you didn't say "answers".
Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me. I do not have an internal longing to question it further. However, I applaud the dialogue here simply due to this quote that I recently heard and have embraced:
Kneel before the creator over the stars, but for answers, turn to one another.
Quote from: Daidalos on January 17, 2009, 10:17:46 AM
I could always refer to a Prime Mover, a Transcendent Being,
Trascendent Being would be an approximate term, but maybe we human beings are also trascendent in another dimension.
Quote from: Bogey on January 17, 2009, 04:43:33 PM
Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me.
Day 1: God creates light.
Day 2: God creates the heavens.
Day 3: God creates dry land and sea.
Day 4: God creates lights in the heavens.
Day 5: God creates sea creatures and birds.
Day 6: God creates the land animals and human beings.
Day 7: Day of rest. Really? What does "day" mean here? Is it 24 hours? Is it a God day? Can God create in darkness? I suppose he can because he was able to create light (is this our Sun?) in darkness. When did he create time? Can time be created when there is no "time" to do that? "Lights in the heavens" must mean stars but when did he create planets? Where was God lurking before he created the world? Is this "week" the only time period God created something? So, Genesis 1:1 really takes care of this question for you? For me it
raises tons of questions!
Quote from: Bogey on January 17, 2009, 04:43:33 PMI do not have an internal longing to question it further.
I hope you do question other important things in life further instead of just accepting what it "indoctrinated" to you.
Quote from: Florestan on January 17, 2009, 10:51:09 AM
In what numerical base? ;D
Any. You can always write 10
2 + 10
2 = 100
2 in binary base.
Quote from: Andante on January 17, 2009, 03:44:20 PM
Hello 71db in answer to your post
I am not Lazy and I am not explaining things with “God“, I note btw that you use a capital G?? and to the contrary it is people that have done a hell of a lot of thinking that come to the conclusion that we just do not know and more than likely never will, now if you want to stick a label [agnostic] onto this group, Fair enough your prerogative.
We don't know
for sure but that doesn't mean we don't have a clue. Scientific search doesn't indicate in the direction of a god described in religion. The existence of "Einsteinian" god is much more probable but such god doesn't give a damn if we worshipped him or not. For religious people the non-existence of god must be proven. For me it's the opposite, the existence of god must be proven. Why should I believe a
rumour of god's existence without evidence? People can (and has) come up with all kind of irrational, crazy, inhuman, harmful and immoral claims. Agnostic people are so certain that we will never know for sure. That's a point of view I don't share. I HOPE we will know for sure soon (before the year 2050 would be nice). Even if we can't know for sure we should try, try and try...
Quote from: Andante on January 17, 2009, 03:44:20 PMReally!! HOW??
I don't mean matter or energy can be removed from our universe just like that. I mean it is easy to imagine an universe with
less energy and matter. Try to imagine a universe with less logical rules!
Quote from: Andante on January 17, 2009, 03:44:20 PMAgain you are falling into the trap that the laws that govern this bit of our UV will apply every where and for all time You are also attributing reason, and an identity to LOGIC???
When you say something applies it means it's logical. Without logic the word "apply" is meaningless. And yes, I think logic is independent from everything else. It's the other way around;
all possible universies must be logical.. Logic is an abstraction, not an identity.
Quote from: Andante on January 17, 2009, 03:44:20 PMDo not think of God as a entity, You are only going so far, try and push a bit further and you will come to a brick wall, this is because IMHO our brains are limited to what we experience, I consider it is not possible for us to understand…..
So, are you saying that because it's "impossible" to know about God, it's
rational to be 100 % sure that God exists and despise people who don't share that conviction? That's what religions are doing.
I don't understand why you are so certain we can't solve the God question someday. Evolution has created amazing brains for us. Let's us them!
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 01:42:32 AM
I hope you do question other important things in life further instead of just accepting what it "indoctrinated" to you.
Absolutely. Always have, and always will. This includes aspects of my spirituality. I have found by questioning and digging for answers concerning
my faith it has only strengthened it. But,
for the specific question posed here, I am content.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 01:42:32 AM
Day 1: God creates light.
Day 2: God creates the heavens.
Day 3: God creates dry land and sea.
Day 4: God creates lights in the heavens.
Day 5: God creates sea creatures and birds.
Day 6: God creates the land animals and human beings.
Day 7: Day of rest.
Really? What does "day" mean here? Is it 24 hours? Is it a God day? Can God create in darkness? I suppose he can because he was able to create light (is this our Sun?) in darkness. When did he create time? Can time be created when there is no "time" to do that? "Lights in the heavens" must mean stars but when did he create planets? Where was God lurking before he created the world? Is this "week" the only time period God created something? So, Genesis 1:1 really takes care of this question for you? For me it raises tons of questions
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, of this raising many questions for you. However, the further questions you posed above are ones that though they may cause me a level of "wonderment" from time to time do not burden my desire for answers to them in the least bit. I guess we differ on this point. In short, your spiritual path will be unique to you as it is for me. I do hope you find your answers along the way.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 01:42:32 AM
Really? What does "day" mean here? Is it 24 hours? Is it a God day? Can God create in darkness? I suppose he can because he was able to create light (is this our Sun?) in darkness. When did he create time? Can time be created when there is no "time" to do that? "Lights in the heavens" must mean stars but when did he create planets? Where was God lurking before he created the world? Is this "week" the only time period God created something? So, Genesis 1:1 really takes care of this question for you? For me it raises tons of questions!
I hope you do question other important things in life further instead of just accepting what it "indoctrinated" to you.
You know since it's clear from your probability post that you reject the very notion of qualitative assessment, it also becomes clear that you can't grasp the concept that most people seek truth and understanding from the bible, and not a literal reading to be scrutinized and analyzed.
I can't dig it up now, but Asimov had addressed this point brilliantly in a short story. If God were to pass on an exact accounting of the history of the universe up to this point, the book of Genesis would be so big that we could have to cut down all of the forests in the world to publish it. And people would gain little from reading it. The bible is meant to be parables that outline spiritual meaning and give guidance.
I'm an atheist, Asimov was an atheist, but I bet we would both agree that your Genesis argument is a non-start.
Again David, it is always a pleasure to read your posts, no matter how far apart we may be on this issue. In short, your words a written with intelligence and kindness that clearly state your position without attacking others' beliefs, but maintaining the integrity of your own. A large reason I refer to you as "friend".
I would like to add another quote of recent read that also helps capsulates my view on my faith that may further clarify for you 71 dB my take on questioning it. It comes from Edward M. Yamauchi (credentials here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Edwin-M.-Yamauchi):
"This doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are some issues that still remain: within this lifetime we will not have full knowledge. But these issues do not even begin to undermine my faith in the essential trustworthiness of the gospels and the rest of the New Testament."
Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2009, 07:02:17 AM
You know since it's clear from your probability post that you reject the very notion of qualitative assessment, it also becomes clear that you can't grasp the concept that most people seek truth and understanding from the bible, and not a literal reading to be scrutinized and analyzed.
I can't grasp? This sounds like the comment
if you don't like a movie you don't "get" it. The bible is a messy collection of conlifting stories and instructions for leaders about how to control people, women and slaves. It has very little to do with 21th century. Seeking truth and understanding from it is not only stupid but also destructive for the society.
Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2009, 07:02:17 AMI can't dig it up now, but Asimov had addressed this point brilliantly in a short story. If God were to pass on an exact accounting of the history of the universe up to this point, the book of Genesis would be so big that we could have to cut down all of the forests in the world to publish it. And people would gain little from reading it. The bible is meant to be parables that outline spiritual meaning and give guidance.
I am no expecting an exact accounting of the history of the universe from the bible. I am not expecting any kind of relevant accounting from it. It's clear such information was not available at the time the bible was constructed. That's the point. Genesis 1:1 is a funny naive old "theory" about how the world was created. It's insane that millions of people today take such BS seriously (why would many people be against
scientifically proved evolution theory if it wasn't for bible and believing in it?). Even the spiritual meaning and give guidance aspect is very weak.
Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2009, 07:02:17 AM
I'm an atheist, Asimov was an atheist, but I bet we would both agree that your Genesis argument is a non-start.
What's the problem with it? I explained why it is stupid to accept Genesis 1:1 as the explanation of how the world was created. I can't see why Asimov (or any other atheist for that matter) would not support my view.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 08:28:02 AM
I can't grasp? This sounds like the comment if you don't like a movie you don't "get" it.
No really it doesn't sound like that at all. Your analogy doesn't work because you're equating your lack of understanding (there is a disparity between what you consider important, and what the average christian would consider important) with a difference in taste. There is a difference between dislike, and contempt due to a lack of understanding. You're showing contempt for christians based on the book of Genesis, I hardly consider that a noteworthy issue.
QuoteI am no expecting an exact accounting of the history of the universe from the bible. I am not expecting any kind of relevant accounting from it. It's clear such information was not available at the time the bible was constructed. That's the point. Genesis 1:1 is a funny naive old "theory" about how the world was created. It's insane that millions of people today take such BS seriously (why would many people be against scientifically proved evolution theory if it wasn't for bible and believing in it?).
I think this gets down to the matter, certainly there are many people that do interpret the bible literally, however the majority of christians as a whole do not. And this is why pointing out the obvious flaws in the book of Genesis is not a good starting point for criticizing christianity as a whole.
QuoteWhat's the problem with it? I explained why it is stupid to accept Genesis 1:1 as the explanation of how the world was created. I can't see why Asimov (or any other atheist for that matter) would not support my view.
The problem is that you point out the obvious in an issue that's not terribly important, and expect that your criticism shakes the very foundations of that religion. You lack perspective.
Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2009, 08:55:53 AM
No really it doesn't sound like that at all. Your analogy doesn't work because you're equating your lack of understanding (there is a disparity between what you consider important, and what the average christian would consider important) with a difference in taste. There is a difference between dislike, and contempt due to a lack of understanding. You're showing contempt for christians based on the book of Genesis, I hardly consider that a noteworthy issue.
I think this gets down to the matter, certainly there are many people that do interpret the bible literally, however the majority of christians as a whole do not. And this is why pointing out the obvious flaws in the book of Genesis is not a good starting point for criticizing christianity as a whole.
The problem is that you point out the obvious in an issue that's not terribly important, and expect that your criticism shakes the very foundations of that religion. You lack perspective.
Bogey said:
"Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me."I said that for me Genesis 1:1 raises tons of questions instead of taking care of anything. I was trying to tell Bogey that maybe he should not be happy with the answers of the bible. I recommend to seek for a more intellectual explanation.
Now you accuse me for trying to criticize whole christianity with Genesis 1:1! Wow! What a jump! :P
Shaking the very foundations of religion is laughable easy but it takes much more than Genesis 1:1.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 09:10:26 AM
Bogey said: "Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me."
That was simply his clever way of saying he calls the what/who (of the thread question) God. Your response was to confuse Genesis 1:1 with Genesis 1, and thus miss the point. I suppose now I understand that you weren't using the excuse of Genesis being named for your tirade, instead you simply misread Bogey's post. That's understandable. :)
Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2009, 09:53:42 AM
That was simply his clever way of saying he calls the what/who (of the thread question) God. Your response was to confuse Genesis 1:1 with Genesis 1, and thus miss the point. I suppose now I understand that you weren't using the excuse of Genesis being named for your tirade, instead you simply misread Bogey's post. That's understandable. :)
Sorry, I don't know what is the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1. I though we were talking about the former. I am not a bible expert. It's new to me that bible really takes care of this question and we who don't believe in god are simply wrong. I will certainly go to hell for this. Damn! :-\
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 01:18:02 PM
Sorry, I don't know what is the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1. I though we were talking about the former. I am not a bible expert. It's new to me that bible really takes care of this question and we who don't believe in god are simply wrong. I will certainly go to hell for this. Damn! :-\
I do not believe I stated you were wrong. I simply stated what works for me. We obviously disagree, but "wrong" was never entered into the conversation at my end. I even believe I was careful enough in my previous posts to use pronouns like "I" and "me". In fact I even underlined "my" in one of the sentences. However, if you are trying to be confrontational for a reaction from me, please do not take this post as a rebuttal, but rather a clarification on my part. However, in regard to being wrong, are you absolutely sure that I am? ;)
Quote from: DavidW on January 18, 2009, 08:55:53 AM
Your
you're
You're
you
your
You
his
he
Sorry for off-topic, but I've noticed that
you like to speak for others, distort their posts, and assign them things they've never said. Or simply jump to hasty conclusions never reading the posts thoroughly enough? ???
Quote from: Sarastro on January 19, 2009, 02:03:28 PM
Sorry for off-topic, but I've noticed that you like to speak for others, distort their posts, and assign them things they've never said. Or simply jump to hasty conclusions never reading the posts thoroughly enough? ???
Don't troll. If you want to respond to a post that I've written, then do so.
Quote from: DavidW on January 19, 2009, 07:16:55 PM
Don't troll. If you want to respond to a post that I've written, then do so.
Perhaps
he was hoping
you wouldn't call
him out on that?
oh dear! Am I also trolling?
Joe Campbell, do you practice cyclism?
Only when the weather's nice. :)
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on January 19, 2009, 10:41:59 PM
Only when the weather's nice. :)
This invernal station does make us think profoundly in the greatness of the creator entity, does not it?
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2009, 01:18:02 PM
I will certainly go to hell for this. Damn! :-\
Relax. We can meet and have a good time. I will bring my Elgar discs!
Quote from: erato on January 20, 2009, 03:18:02 AM
Relax. We can meet and have a good time. I will bring my Elgar discs!
You must hate Elgar if you think his music is suitable for hell. ;D
Perhaps Elgar is forbidden for
me in hell and obligatory for Elgar haters?
Quote from: Bogey on January 18, 2009, 03:25:06 PM
I do not believe I stated you were wrong. I simply stated what works for me. We obviously disagree, but "wrong" was never entered into the conversation at my end. I even believe I was careful enough in my previous posts to use pronouns like "I" and "me". In fact I even underlined "my" in one of the sentences. However, if you are trying to be confrontational for a reaction from me, please do not take this post as a rebuttal, but rather a clarification on my part. However, in regard to being wrong, are you absolutely sure that I am? ;)
This is not about right or wrong. This is about not thinking something simple and naivistic "takes care of the issue."
Quote from: 71 dB on January 20, 2009, 10:00:06 AM
This is not about right or wrong. This is about not thinking something simple and naivistic "takes care of the issue."
An appeal to virtue sayings doesn't decide the subject of the thread, that's true.
Bogey is being pragmatic, though not in a way I would endorse, since I'm rather priggish about the proper uses of pragmatic reasoning. I don't think that what "works for me" is true unless something confirms my belief beyond my desire to believe it. The radical pragmatist Richard Rorty, on the other hand, thinks that if the relevant community declares themselves in agreement that some ancient bit of scripture has decided something then there's nothing more to say. The "truth" is what some community says it is, particularly if you're a member of said community. So if you're a NAZI Naziism is true. Rorty, incidentally, never could properly answer this objection. All he could come up with is that the truth is just a way of getting what you want, and you should want progressive things like him and therefore belong to the same liberal community he does. Ughh! Why this isn't seen as relativism at its worst beats me.
All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analyzed by the human being with the parameters of science.
Quote from: epicous on September 01, 2009, 09:21:11 AM
All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analized by the human being with the parameters of science.
If I were so inclined, I'd make a dirty joke right about now.
Quote from: Daidalos on September 01, 2009, 12:47:37 PM
If I was so inclined, I'd make a dirty joke right about now.
What, are WE being analized? :o
8)
Quote from: epicous on September 01, 2009, 09:21:11 AM
All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analized by the human being with the parameters of science.
What leads you to believe that "all that is present outside of the material complexity" describes something? If something can't be analyzed
within the parameters it doesn't mean it can be analyzed
without the parameters. And there is no requirement to believe everything unanalyzable exists, so why is there a requirements to believe any
specific unanalyzable? How can you be specific about such a "thing"?
That's the problem with positing creation as a solution for a Universe. Answers, where there are any, must be framed in terms of causality. You can't ask who/what caused the Universe without presupposing a causal relation which can no more be "outside the material complexity" than anything else. To causally connect would mean putting all of what is connected inside the explanatory system which means inside everything. Concepts of everything will have everything in them.
:P It doesn't look like everything is the sort of thing that can be created, does it?* Not if you're serious about explanations. Otherwise you have to split everything into what you know about and what you don't and then make knowledge claims about the
don't part, and while you can move concepts around like that the Universe won't budge. Just because you can divide the world that way is no reason to believe the world divides itself like that.
* Everything that can be created is made by recombining things, so there have to be things. Quote from: Daidalos on September 01, 2009, 12:47:37 PM
If I was so inclined, I'd make a dirty joke right about now.
Not if it's outside the material complexity.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on September 01, 2009, 12:58:52 PM
Everything that can be created is made by recombining things, so there have to be things.
But what are 'things'?
Quote from: Elgarian on September 01, 2009, 01:10:44 PM
But what are 'things'?
I don't know. Am I allowed to make something up? If so, they are a mystery that Bog created to test us. That's good enough for theologians and a dwindling pool of philosophers. If it isn't good enough (it isn't for me) then I have to say that a request for knowledge like "what are things?" can only be properly answered from the knowledge available about them. I consider it an illicit move to do like the believer and answer a request for knowledge with a belief supported by the desire to hold it. What the materialist doesn't know about things is not known otherwise.
If there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge. Because knowledge is invariably about material things (up to and including thoughts), it's sometimes suggested that there are nonmaterial "things" we can't have knowledge about (which explains (?) why we don't). Do you see the mistake? Not only is this wrong as a supposition (there is exactly
no reason to suppose such a thing), it is treated by those who hold it as though it was confirmed somehow and certain!
To answer your question more directly, things are persistent patterns (technically, that's how we know, but epistemology and ontology are fused at the limit). But I take it that your question is more like "what are they really?" or "what are they at bottom?", something like that. You can't be prevented from asking what lies beyond the knowledge barrier, and that's good, because we get new knowledge from explorations inspired by such questions. Still, it's good to remember that when we make up an answer about Bog and his plans, that what we've done is tell a story.
Quote from: epicous on September 01, 2009, 09:21:11 AM
All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analized by the human being with the parameters of science.
Quote from: drogulus on September 01, 2009, 01:51:00 PM
If there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge. Because knowledge is invariably about material things (up to and including thoughts), it's sometimes suggested that there are nonmaterial "things" we can't have knowledge about (which explains (?) why we don't).
You see, believers and materialists do agree on this point. The materialist simply accepts the consequences of this and draws the conservative conclusion that no reason exists to claim knowledge where there is none to be had. If the situation changes and knowledge is acquired then we will do what we've always done and incorporate the new understanding. Materialism, which might once have been a fixed group of theories, is now an all-encompassing category for everything we know enough about to fit with everything else. All the action is within materialism, where various forms of realism or instrumentalism are deployed to clarify what is meant by a theory being true, and how to usefully define just what is meant by the distinction, where it's made, between what there is and what is known.
What or who created the universe?
God, by definition.
New Species Of Lobster May Have Come From Outer Space (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AklAu.RCq3JcngWpEidid5hG2vAI;_ylu=X3oDMTFnZzlrazd2BGlpZAMxNTY5MTg3OTgxMjU4NjIyNjU3NQRub2gDNARwb3MDMQRyaWQDMzkxNzYyNg--/SIG=12r12t9e8/**http%3A//feeds.theonion.com/~r/theonion/weekly/~3/RIPYjA9Ee_8/new_species_of_lobster_may)
Sure, why not? By definition, even, if you can't get it any other way. Let's not let mere material knowledge of lobsters interfere with a good story. :D
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 01, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
What or who created the universe?
God, by definition.
Of course you then get the question that a lot of children come back with, who made God.
Quote from: Andante on September 01, 2009, 08:05:14 PM
Of course you then get the question that a lot of children come back with, who made God.
Well, those children need to be educated! (sorry for the video’s title. I certainly didn’t choose it)
http://www.youtube.com/v/9D8AeiAamjY
Quote from: drogulus on September 01, 2009, 01:51:00 PM
To answer your question more directly, things are persistent patterns (technically, that's how we know, but epistemology and ontology are fused at the limit). But I take it that your question is more like "what are they really?" or "what are they at bottom?", something like that.
The purpose of my question was to highlight the fact that one's picture of the universe will inevitably be limited by how one defines 'things'. If you define a 'thing' as X, and then construct a self-consistent model of the world in those terms (that is, which excludes the possibility that a 'thing' might be Y), then at the end of the process it will inevitably be true that
within that model, X has been a satisfactory and sufficient definition of a 'thing'. It can't be otherwise. Since the outcome was inevitable (the result was fixed at the outset), we've shed no light at all on the possibility that a 'thing' might be Y.
QuoteIf there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge.
Here it is again. The statement sounds reasonable because it's operating on such a big philosophical scale, but its purpose is to restrict the meaning of 'knowledge' in order to exclude anything that won't fit the self-consistent model -
as if we already knew the validity of the self-consistent model.
I'm not proposing a philosophy of 'anything goes'; I'm just pointing out that all these kinds of arguments are constructed so that they can't fail, within their own terms. It's then a simple matter to slip in the subtext 'these are the only terms acceptable', and you've got the whole thing sewn up. It sounds persuasive because it's so interlocked with itself, but really it boils down to: 'I'll accept any answer that agrees with mine.'
Quote from: Iconito on September 01, 2009, 10:21:41 PM
Well, those children need to be educated! (sorry for the video's title. I certainly didn't choose it)
http://www.youtube.com/v/9D8AeiAamjY
Actually, having suffered through all nine minutes of that video, I think the title is perfectly fair; the Creationists in that video DO pollute young minds at that museum. It's shameless, what they do.
Quote from: Daidalos on September 02, 2009, 01:02:24 PM
Actually, having suffered through all nine minutes of that video, I think the title is perfectly fair; the Creationists in that video DO pollute young minds at that museum. It's shameless, what they do.
I know... I would have titled it “Horrifying Child Abuse” or something along those lines. I think I lost two or three years of my life expectancy watching that crap. :'(
Quote from: Iconito on September 02, 2009, 02:08:28 PM
I know... I would have titled it "Horrifying Child Abuse" or something along those lines. I think I lost two or three years of my life expectancy watching that crap. :'(
Yeah, I think you're right. If anything, the title is too mild. It's astonishing to me how they can be so slimy, having the children parrot their proud, willful ignorance. I'm quite convinced, as far as the leaders of the various Creationist persuasions are concerned, that they
know that the evidence speaks against them, but they just don't care. It's despicable. While I suppose it would be going too far to call their behavior "criminal" (although sometimes I'm tempted), it galls me that they can spout their dishonest nonsense and
still lay claim to the moral high ground.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 01, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
What or who created the universe?
God, by definition.
Only the definition concocted by one group of people.
Since humans weren't here when the universe began, my answer to "Who or what created the universe" is
"I don't know." I am not uncomfortable with ambiguity or mystery....
Since evolution started at some point (we don't know when) and that can be seen and touched, I do strongly support the teaching of evolution in biology classes. Don't me started on "intelligent design." :)
Quote from: Iconito on September 01, 2009, 10:21:41 PM
Well, those children need to be educated! (sorry for the video's title. I certainly didn't choose it)
I also sat through the whole thing, what amazes me is that they are allowed to teach this in to days schools, or is it special schools operated by the Creationists? a question that will never go away IMO is, was the UV/UVs created purposely or did it just pop into existence, if I try to expand that further I stumble
Quote from: drogulus on September 01, 2009, 01:51:00 PM
If there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge. Because knowledge is invariably about material things
Quote from: Elgarian on September 02, 2009, 12:19:52 AMHere it is again. The statement sounds reasonable because it's operating on such a big philosophical scale, but its purpose is to restrict the meaning of 'knowledge' in order to exclude anything that won't fit the self-consistent model - as if we already knew the validity of the self-consistent model.
I'm not proposing a philosophy of 'anything goes'; I'm just pointing out that all these kinds of arguments are constructed so that they can't fail, within their own terms. It's then a simple matter to slip in the subtext 'these are the only terms acceptable', and you've got the whole thing sewn up. It sounds persuasive because it's so interlocked with itself, but really it boils down to: 'I'll accept any answer that agrees with mine.'
It's kind of you to keep trying with Ernie, but he has long proven himself impervious to reason and logic. He has made ridiculous statements like the one you quoted above many times--but no matter how often I point out that we have significant bodies of knowledge about non-material things, like love, justice, honor, truth, logic, reason, accuracy, doubt, faith, etc., the poor fellow is a hopeless prisoner of extraordinarily narrow-minded prejudice. That even the subject of this forum--music--is non-material completely escapes his limited capacity to understand.
A mind poisoned by unreasoning prejudice and blinding arrogance is a terrible tragedy. Oh, well...some of us must be bad examples and cautionary tales, I suppose.
Quote from: Elgarian on September 02, 2009, 12:19:52 AM
The purpose of my question was to highlight the fact that one's picture of the universe will inevitably be limited by how one defines 'things'. If you define a 'thing' as X, and then construct a self-consistent model of the world in those terms (that is, which excludes the possibility that a 'thing' might be Y), then at the end of the process it will inevitably be true that within that model, X has been a satisfactory and sufficient definition of a 'thing'. It can't be otherwise. Since the outcome was inevitable (the result was fixed at the outset), we've shed no light at all on the possibility that a 'thing' might be Y.
Here it is again. The statement sounds reasonable because it's operating on such a big philosophical scale, but its purpose is to restrict the meaning of 'knowledge' in order to exclude anything that won't fit the self-consistent model - as if we already knew the validity of the self-consistent model.
You are sadly confused. What drogulus proposes is not at all what you call a 'self-consistent' model (what you actually mean is more something like 'immutable', but let's ignore that for the moment). Your disagreement is not over the definition of 'things', but rather about the concept of knowledge. You would like to include in the concept of knowledge emotions, inklings and instincts. Sadly, these aren't knowledge in any meaningful sense of the term (otherwise we would not have those other words for them). Knowledge by definition has to be empirical and therefore limited to what can be demonstrated in the material world (that includes knowledge about feelings and instincts, etc. insofar as they can be biologically and behaviorally measured). If knowledge cannot be replicated by a doubter, if it requires a priori faith or a common emotional sensation, it isn't knowledge. Thus drogulus' definition is perfectly accurate. He does not exclude at all that in time new knowledge about 'things' could be discovered, but that new knowledge, too, will be material knowledge as all knowledge is by definition.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 02, 2009, 08:14:46 PM
but no matter how often I point out that we have significant bodies of knowledge about non-material things, like love, justice, honor, truth, logic, reason, accuracy, doubt, faith, etc., the poor fellow is a hopeless prisoner of extraordinarily narrow-minded prejudice. That even the subject of this forum--music--is non-material completely escapes his limited capacity to understand.
You too are confused about the concept of 'knowledge'. See above. We have plenty of material knowledge of how humans perceive all the various highlighted terms (I'm not quite sure why 'reason' and 'accuracy' are in there, I don't think you can dispute that these can be fully understood by rational empirical means), but there is plenty more that we don't know. The feelings and beliefs we have about those items do not constitute hard knowledge. It cannot be understood by persons who doubt those faiths or do not experience those feelings at a given time, are hence not-transferable, subjective and non-scientific. Faith and gut feelings are not knowledge, even if some self-anointed guru wrote a book about it.
Quote from: O Mensch on September 02, 2009, 08:30:47 PM
Your disagreement is not over the definition of 'things', but rather about the concept of knowledge.
My disagreement is over the definition of things AND the concept of knowledge. But at the time we happened to be talking about 'things'.
QuoteKnowledge by definition has to be empirical and therefore limited to what can be demonstrated in the material world (that includes knowledge about feelings and instincts, etc. insofar as they can be biologically and behaviorally measured).
This is exactly the philosophical error that Drogulus falls into, again and again.
Of course you'll agree with him, and disagree with me - you're making the same philosophical mistakes, by defining your terms in such a way as to exclude contradiction. But forgive me if I don't go over all this ground yet again; I've covered it in other threads to the point of exhaustion.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 02, 2009, 08:14:46 PM
It's kind of you to keep trying with Ernie
I'm not really trying, Dave, because no resolution is possible. I'm just putting in a few observations that might cause a passing reader to at least question these apparently plausible arguments.
Quote from: Andante on September 02, 2009, 06:01:05 PM
I also sat through the whole thing, what amazes me is that they are allowed to teach this in to days schools, or is it special schools operated by the Creationists?
As it mentions in the video, this is a group of "home-schooled Christian children", so these guys are basically preaching to the choir.
Quote from: Elgarian on September 02, 2009, 09:09:10 PM
This is exactly the philosophical error that Drogulus falls into, again and again. Of course you'll agree with him, and disagree with me - you're making the same philosophical mistakes, by defining your terms in such a way as to exclude contradiction. But forgive me if I don't go over all this ground yet again; I've covered it in other threads to the point of exhaustion.
No, your problem is a whole lot of assumptions on which you operate. When someone tells you 'knowledge is necessarily empirical and material', you get all agitated about all the things that 'excludes' and that we are therefore depriving ourselves of 'other types of knowledge' (even though those other types cannot be knowledge, but let's ignore that for the moment). There is some basic assumption there that we humans are somehow entitled to knowledge beyond the material. But this is not the case. The intellectually honest thing to do is to say: 'up to here my empirical research yields reliable knowledge, beyond this point I simply do not know.' But to claim that you do 'know' things outside of your empirical knowledge is nonsense. Those are simply guesses, instincts and beliefs. Which is fine. Humans are designed to operate on guesses and instincts and we're pretty good at it much of the time (as long as we keep checking whether or not perhaps some things can't in fact be figured out and corrected empirically). But we run into serious danger when we confuse instinct, guesses and faith for actual hard knowledge. There is an underlying emotional insecurity that leads to this: many of us are simply unwilling or unable to live with our vast ignorance of the universe. It makes us uncomfortable, so in order to feel better about ourselves we just make shit up and call it 'knowledge'. But knowledge it is not. Intellectual honesty requires calling things what they are and not calling them what they're not.
Quote from: O Mensch on September 02, 2009, 08:30:47 PM
You too are confused about the concept of 'knowledge'. See above. We have plenty of material knowledge of how humans perceive all the various highlighted terms (I'm not quite sure why 'reason' and 'accuracy' are in there, I don't think you can dispute that these can be fully understood by rational empirical means), but there is plenty more that we don't know. The feelings and beliefs we have about those items do not constitute hard knowledge. It cannot be understood by persons who doubt those faiths or do not experience those feelings at a given time, are hence not-transferable, subjective and non-scientific. Faith and gut feelings are not knowledge, even if some self-anointed guru wrote a book about it.
Good grief. You are the confused one, thinking you know or understand things that you don't, and being so arrogant about it that you fail to grasp even simple concepts that contradict your prejudices. Knowledge itself is non-material. So is the knower. So is every single goddamned concept you use to express yourself--even the concept of "material." (Even matter itself, of course, has long been understood as a manifestation of increasing complex organization of discrete packets of energy.) If common sense fails you, then perhaps you can remedy that deficiency by academic study. My own studies in epistemology were conducted under J.O. Urmson, Michael Bratman, and Ian Hacking. I have no pretensions of expertise, but at least I have a basic understanding of the fundamental issues of knowledge and belief...and a modicum of common sense as well! I suggest you remedy these deficiencies in yourself before presuming to correct others' statements about matters that clearly escape your understanding.
It's like trying to explain color to a blind man.
Quote from: Franco on September 03, 2009, 01:35:33 PM
It's like trying to explain color to a blind man.
Nice analogy. Some blind men may recognize (or at least be open-minded to the possibility) that they are deficient in some way, and thus will be wiling to apply themselves to an enlarged understanding that at least enables them to grasp the concept of color even if they are unable to experience it personally. Others, sadly, might just be so god-damned closed-minded and self-centered that they
insist their own
limited experience
must be definitive for everyone, and so they refuse to admit the possibility of color and consequently condemn themselves to everlasting willful ignorance.
Quote from: Andante on September 02, 2009, 06:01:05 PM
I also sat through the whole thing, what amazes me is that they are allowed to teach this in to days schools, or is it special schools operated by the Creationists?
Home schoolers have leeway in what they can teach, but there are lots of right-wing groups who want to see creationism taught in the public schools as an "alternate theory" to evolution. They try to make creationism sound more scientific by calling it "intelligent design." Besides the intellectual inequality (IMO) there is the important issue of separation of church and state. Religious dogma should not be in the public schools. It belongs in the home and church. So there!
Knowledge is not the same as factual information. There done. Was that too hard? :D
The only source of debate is that a couple of posters were using their own private definition. Don't you just hate that?
I agree with Elgarian and Dave. :)
Oh okay I'll elaborate I guess--
Say Elgarian sits down to edit a journal article. He reads the article. He has gained knowledge right? But he has not confirmed the truth for himself. So it's not material knowledge. If I were to tell you the speed of sound is 343 m/s, then whether it's the truth or not, would you not think that you know what the speed of sound is? That's the problem, communication of a result conveys knowledge in an immaterial abstract way. Yet it's still knowledge. Not quite as witty as Dave pointing out the immaterial laden post, but there you have it. :)
Quote from: DavidW on September 03, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Oh okay I'll elaborate I guess--
Say Elgarian sits down to edit a journal article. He reads the article. He has gained knowledge right? But he has not confirmed the truth for himself. So it's not material knowledge. If I were to tell you the speed of sound is 343 m/s, then whether it's the truth or not, would you not think that you know what the speed of sound is? That's the problem, communication of a result conveys knowledge in an immaterial abstract way. Yet it's still knowledge. Not quite as witty as Dave pointing out the immaterial laden post, but there you have it. :)
It's not quite that simple. If he reads an article, he has gained quite material knowledge about what is said in that article. I.e. He knows what the article says and the nature of what is de facto contained in that article is not controversial: either it is in fact in the article or not, that can be unambiguously ascertained by reverting back to the article and checking it. Whether or not that article has anything useful to say is a different matter.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 03, 2009, 01:22:27 PM
Good grief. You are the confused one, thinking you know or understand things that you don't, and being so arrogant about it that you fail to grasp even simple concepts that contradict your prejudices. Knowledge itself is non-material. So is the knower. So is every single goddamned concept you use to express yourself--even the concept of "material." (Even matter itself, of course, has long been understood as a manifestation of increasing complex organization of discrete packets of energy.) If common sense fails you, then perhaps you can remedy that deficiency by academic study. My own studies in epistemology were conducted under J.O. Urmson, Michael Bratman, and Ian Hacking. I have no pretensions of expertise, but at least I have a basic understanding of the fundamental issues of knowledge and belief...and a modicum of common sense as well! I suggest you remedy these deficiencies in yourself before presuming to correct others' statements about matters that clearly escape your understanding.
It is telling that in order to accuse me of arrogance you have to excise the most important sentence from my prior post that you're quoting:
Quote from: O Mensch on September 03, 2009, 06:17:36 AM
The intellectually honest thing to do is to say: 'up to here my empirical research yields reliable knowledge, beyond this point I simply do not know.'
Read that again carefully. You don't seem to have understood it.
Here is what you're failing to grasp: I don't disagree that there are plenty of things to be experienced outside of empirical knowledge. And it is good that we are capable of that because otherwise we couldn't function very well, given our limited ability to process empirical knowledge within our lifetimes. Read that previous sentence again. It's important. But I disagree that this sort of instinctual experience is of the same quality as what we call empirical knowledge. Indeed to treat those two as the same and to rely on non-empirical knowledge in the same way that one can rely on empirical knowledge is arrogant and foolish.
You take this fallacy to an extreme by flatly claiming that knowledge and the knower are non-material. To agree with you on this I would have to share your faith in a sort of human soul, distinct and separate from the material human body. Yet it is inherent in your faith that you cannot provide proof to the doubter who does not share your faith, precisely because you lack the material evidence for it. Hence, what a non-arrogant intellectually honest person should say is that we simply do not know at this point in history what else constitutes the human being beyond the material body and its measurable neurological and other biological processes. But it is characteristic of your own arrogance that you are unwilling to settle for a state of considerable partial ignorance. You think you are entitled to knowledge beyond what is currently available as material knowledge and you fill in the blanks through faith-based constructs. But knowledge that is not.
BTW, you can cut out the name dropping. If your arguments can't stand on their own feet, citing the names of your teachers won't help. I'm not impressed.
The problem with defining knowledge on a factual basis is that we rarely, if at all, can be absolutely certain of a fact. Most facts have to be qualified. For instance the speed of light is not always 343 m/s and indeed it may have been quite different at the time of the 'big bang' (that is definitely not knowledge!). The inference of this is that we do not know what is knowledge and what is not. What is more the statement 'knowledge is facts about the material world' is merely a definition and not a demonstrable material fact. Therefore it is not itself knowledge.
Quote from: epicous on December 23, 2008, 04:41:13 PM
What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?
The world kidnapped by the Orc Scientists who brainwash innocent and simple people about unfounded oblivious and void nonsensical Big Bangs
(http://www.theonering.com/images/medialibrary/91tcal_02.jpg)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 06, 2009, 08:07:20 AM
The problem with defining knowledge on a factual basis is that we rarely, if at all, can be absolutely certain of a fact. Most facts have to be qualified. For instance the speed of light is not always 343 m/s and indeed it may have been quite different at the time of the 'big bang' (that is definitely not knowledge!). The inference of this is that we do not know what is knowledge and what is not. What is more the statement 'knowledge is facts about the material world' is merely a definition and not a demonstrable material fact. Therefore it is not itself knowledge.
No, all this demonstrates is that you must understand knowledge as probabilistic and not absolute. That facts are not certain does not mean they are not facts. It means you steer clear of absolutist ways of thinking about them. All science assumes this point of view, which is why new theories can replace old ones without invalidating science. Philosophers, OTOH, have a great deal of trouble on this point. They agree with your inference that a lack of certainty means nothing is known. They always make this stupid, stupid move and apparently can't understand an explanation of what's wrong with it.
I'll try again: Don't define knowledge in a way that nothing can answer to it. It may be clever to show that we really know nothing, but in every sense that's important it's obviously and stupidly
false.
Another point:
QuoteWhat is more the statement 'knowledge is facts about the material world' is merely a definition and not a demonstrable material fact. Therefore it is not itself knowledge.
Knowledge about the world is not all we know. We also know about rules of interpretation. Facts are verified and rules are used. Definitions are knowledge, yes, and not facts about the world, and they are useful. We have to name things and categorize them without thinking the names are objects in the world, not "material knowledge". I encourage people to avoid treating abstractions as objects in the world, so where's the problem?
It's harder to explain success than failure, which is why mystics and believers try to make you think you know nothing. Failure has many possible causes, but how can you explain how we get around in the world if we know nothing? Success demands an explanation of how it's accomplished. The mystic/believer devalues this to make you think devalued knowledge is the same as no knowledge and hopes you don't notice this neat move. You should notice it, because if you can find your way from the sidewalk to your front door you have knowledge. It's funny, we aren't supposed to know things yet we do. How?
Why is a common sense definition of knowledge compatible with experience from a child riding a bicycle for the first time all the way up to investigating the early universe with the latest technology, and why is all of this supposed to be nothing? Shouldn't we treat this "nothingism" as suspect? Why is it so important to devalue the world, to say that it can't exist without help from something offstage somewhere, that life can't arise on it's own, that you can't think thoughts without an unknown something giving you permission, and that no matter what, knowledge is never good enough unless ignorance is given authority over it?
Quote from: DavidW on September 03, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Oh okay I'll elaborate I guess--
Say Elgarian sits down to edit a journal article. He reads the article. He has gained knowledge right? But he has not confirmed the truth for himself. So it's not material knowledge. If I were to tell you the speed of sound is 343 m/s, then whether it's the truth or not, would you not think that you know what the speed of sound is? That's the problem, communication of a result conveys knowledge in an immaterial abstract way. Yet it's still knowledge. Not quite as witty as Dave pointing out the immaterial laden post, but there you have it. :)
You can be well informed about something or only know it sketchily. It's usually better to have hands on knowledge. You can understand deeply at the theoretical level, though. Anyway, it's not important to anything here. Knowledge, however acquired, is confirmed by what you do with it, even if it's just confirming it again. Book learning vs. experience is a false dichotomy. Most experience has a lot of book learning in it anyway.
Quote from: DavidW on September 03, 2009, 03:33:33 PM
Knowledge is not the same as factual information. There done. Was that too hard? :D
That's true. It still not a good idea to run a fact-free model of knowledge like the mystics/believers do. Just try to determine facts without information or experiments. Once again, imperfect material knowledge is supposed to come in second place to the perfect knowledge no one has in a race that will never be held. I wish people had the innate good sense to just walk away from this idiocy, but clearly the non-rational component in human psychology just
luuuvs this stuff. It's a mental sweet tooth. And to see very intelligent and sophisticated posters here get bedazzled by it is quite a lesson in the limits of what Kant called "pure reason". If you don't reason about sense data (to not coin a phrase
:D), you're just adrift with your own thoughts, imagining grand confirmations for your intuitions.*
Incidentally, I think faith and gut feelings are things we can have knowledge about. We can study them, and have. We don't adopt the conclusions of faith and gut feelings because we
do study them, and have gained a little experience with how they lead us astray. The mystics/believers give us plenty of evidence to show how to interpret their...uh...musings? When they decline to give their affirmative case for the antimaterialist position and instead employ their evasions about what can be perfectly known, there should be no doubt. They have nothing to show because they have nothing.
* I have intuitions, too, you know! :( Mine tell me that intuitions can't be trusted unless they can be confirmed somehow. Why can't that be automatically true just like the other ones? :( :(
Quote from: drogulus on September 06, 2009, 10:10:43 AM
No, all this demonstrates is that you must understand knowledge as probabilistic and not absolute. That facts are not certain does not mean they are not facts. It means you steer clear of absolutist ways of thinking about them. All science assumes this point of view, which is why new theories can replace old ones without invalidating science. Philosophers, OTOH, have a great deal of trouble on this point. They agree with your inference that a lack of certainty means nothing is known. They always make this stupid, stupid move and apparently can't understand an explanation of what's wrong with it.
I'll try again: Don't define knowledge in a way that nothing can answer to it. It may be clever to show that we really know nothing, but in every sense that's important it's obviously and stupidly false.
Good. I agree in general with what you say here. My first response was entirely tongue in cheek, I assure you. Besides, the whole of pure mathematics is knowledge concerning non-material things. Scientific knowledge is our knowledge of the universe etc. as it stands now and is subject to further revelations.