God does exist.

Re: Faith... as usual

Hehe, and what would you use to confirm THAT with? It's not true if I don't think it is RIGHT? I don't.

Well then your view is biased by something other than reason. I would therefore inherently disagree with you if you were to assert anything "real" about it. I'll entertain your theory for sure, but if you fail to call it anything else, IMO, you are exactly unreasonable.

Please, tell me what "god's word" is. I'm most curious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Faith... as usual... again...

The experience. I don't need someone to agree with me for me to know if it's fact or not. Get me? The current scientific method is incompatible with this, obviously.

I don't get this. What part of my previous post did it arise from? Or is it from the 'God=The Universe' post. Even if so, you misinterpreted.

Glad you noticed. That was my point anyway. I don't use reason or logic only - I use my soul - the experience - edit - in addition to reason and logic.

Exactly - in other words I don't make the conclusions made by limited logical analyses limit my thinking. Strange huh?

Jesus Christ. Satisfied?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Faith... as usual... again...

The experience. I don't need someone to agree with me for me to know if it's fact or not. Get me? The current scientific method is incompatible with this, obviously.

I didn't speak well, I was just saying you use your brain.

I don't get this. What part of my previous post did it arise from? Or is it from the 'God=The Universe' post. Even if so, you misinterpreted.

Eh, I didn't, but it's too much to go into for me at the moment.

Glad you noticed. That was my point anyway. I don't use reason or logic - I use my soul - the experience.

Well, you can use whatever poetic language you want. You use your brain. Of course you can hold to whatever you'd like, but that doesn't mean it has any bearing on anything, even yourself. I only say this because to me it seems as if you're attempting to speak objectively (soul) about something that is subjective in nature (your perception of yourself). IMO, you're using your brain regardeless of the poetic label you attach to it. Notice though, that I'm not placing limits on the function of brain... so our messages are similar, it's just to me it sounds like you are more comfortable with making things sound pretty.

Exactly - in other words I don't make the conclusions made by limited logical analyses limit my thinking. Strange huh?

It's not strange. You think that I'm convinced that everything I think is logical and reasonable? HAH! You're way off. I know I'm pretty full of shit actually and will bullshit myself into tomorrow with all kinds of flaky bullshit. I use logic and reason as tools to keep me somewhat grounded. Hmm.. I even use them to attempt to be reasonable. I especially use them when I'm trying to understand the world around me. I don't think I'll ever try to be dishonest with myself and just assume that since I think pink bunnies ate my soul... they must have. Strange huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jesus Christ. Satisfied?

I am satisfied in that you answered my question. I am not satified that this is a viable answer for ME, no. I wonder why jesus christ? Does this mean that you find the bible to be a credible document regarding "spirituality"? If so, then why is it more credible than any other religious document? Why might you presume that "religious documents" have any bearing on anything of substance? Oh man, that whole can of worms again. It's all a bunch of bullshit. Sorry, you seem like a nice guy, but do you remember that bullshit I was talking about 'causing minimal logical damage'? Hehe, well, I'd just say that the path your on disregards that as a factor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hm. My first post. I think I'll play it conserverative by attempting to disagree with everything everyone has said, more or less. Before I start, though, I'd like to say I'm rather appreciative of the well thought out arguments on all sides.

Regarding 'faith':

I won't be so trite as to type out the dictionary definition of this word. Ignoring the purely religious version of this word (ie, Faith, capitalized), it boils down to one concept; firm belief in something, even regardless of proof. Oddly enough, everyone in the recent posts seems to declare that 'faith' is a good thing. Even wesmorris - who has been putting forth some pretty bulletproof arguments - has made this exact claim in a rebuttal to havalina.

Why would a strong belief - any given random strong belief - be a good thing? That something is good or not is such a relative concept that I'm concerned that it was even brought up.

In truth, I have to believe that wesmorris used that phrase in an offhanded manner, meaning it to be more filler than part of an argument, though he repeats a variant of that phrase in a later post. Feel very free to correct me on this matter. Havalina, on the other hand, is more direct;

and ...

I suppose it gives away my personal belief system, but I don't think that faith is required, and that Faith (capital letters indicating religious belief) should be abandonded. Faith is unnecessary. I do believe that being intelligent and emotionally healthy will suffice for the need for Faith, and most sorts of faith in general. So what if we can't put an answer for every question. Do we need to fill in the blanks in every situation?
Does it really matter that we pretend to know with great certainty a thing which we in fact do not know?

Long before our time, the great problems were realized; "What does it mean to be alive?", "Why are we here?", "What should we be doing?", "What happens when we die?". Those people must have quickly realized that they had no ready answer to those questions. Granted, they were probably just finished dealing with bogglers like "What have I done to make the sky crack open with white fire and great noise?", and "What can I do to make it rain?" Unfortunately for the human race, man was not a creature of intense logic. Intense curiousity, yes, and for some, sadly, the requirement that every question be answered, no matter how silly the answer ended up being, but not logical. So, they answered these great unknowable questions the same way they answered the questions about the creation of lightning, thunder, and rain; god did it.

Now, that's not to say the christan god, but rather, god as a concept embodying all that which is unknown, and then personified.

For these people, faith in their answers was like a mental and emotional bandaid. It's simple psychology, people get a sense of closure when they can attribute a willful cause to an effect. That's why 'Violence' seems bad, but 'Senseless Violence' seems worse. People like reasons - but they don't need them, despite how much they desperately WANT them.

Fast forward to today.

We have yet to answer these questions. People are a bit more willing to use reason, though many are tied to tradition and the social conditioning performed on them by their parents and society (atheists tend to brainwash their kids in the same way christans and other similar religious cults do). A god isn't the answer for the things that we know about; science as a belief system is erroding the territory that was previously the bailiwick of religion. It starts falling back on the old unanswerables, the things we honestly don't have answers for, and things we cannot answer regardless of how advanced our species becomes. We get poorly reasoned drivel assuming the name of 'rationale' or 'arguments', misdirected arguments like the pseudo-atheist's "need for proof" or the fradulant reasoning from Pascal's Wager; full of pretentious drivel that discounts the religions followed by the majority of the population of the world.

(Logic dictates that absense of proof does not indicate nonexistance of a thing. An atheist relying on absense of proof for his belief is as validated as a theist relying on a holy book, such as the christian bible for theirs.. thus the diminishing title 'pseudo-atheist')

How far have we come on these questions? Nowhere. We still haven't 'figured them out'. In fact, we have determined that they are unknowable, yet people still have faith in their concept of their answer, and somehow, it changes nothing in the long run. Granted, it affects the relgious among us in the short run, as far as their morals and ethical beliefs go. I consider that the payment people make for answering a question in which the correct answer will always be "I don't honestly know", and then procede to put their faith in the answer they give.

Regarding the Question of the Existance of a Higher Power:

Since the above section on 'faith' ties up with the personal opinon that answering the unanswerable is never going to provide one with positive answers, you might wonder how I can be an atheist (implied by being nilhilistic), since it clearly involves making a decision.

Well, I've two answers, you can pick which one you like, and assult me for the logic in the one you don't. That way we can all have something to argue about.

First, it is my opinion that strong belief in a concept isn't going to net you a positive. All the same, that doesn't insure negatives. You can end up being totally neutral. All the same, there's no insurance against people who do deliberately chose a belief that may have a negative impact on them - 'Smoking is not harmful' for example. In short, what I believe, without proof, is that there is no god, and my rationale is simply that there isn't anything that would require one. Questions without answers are going to happen. We don't need to inject a god just to fix it. It seems so much a human failure to do so. I think I chose the least negative answer, in that it will have little effect on my day to day life.

Second, existance of a higher power is a catchall. That is, it's an attempt to answer all of the unknowable questions at once. Why are we here? God. What should we be doing? Ask god. Where will we be when we die? With god. Etc.

It's almost like an answer, more than a question. In fact, it is one of many many potential answers for a good set of the unanswerable questions. I'm more or less potently against needing answers for those questions, so, at the cost of one belief, I'd rather believe in the nonexistance of god, and not taint the remaining questions with potential readymade answers.

.
.
.

How's that for a first post?

I made several logic errors, and capricious use of the english language always gets me into trouble. Feel free to do a standard point-by-point analysis of the argument, as I see so often on this system. I'm more attracted to an argument over being right or wrong, though .. who doesn't like to think of themselves as being right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hehe, trying to dodge the blow before it is dealt eh? Nicely played.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At least you're paying attention eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Welcome to sciforums, it's a zany brain bending place. Good to seem you came prepared (big juicy brain and all).

And as long as we're appreciating one another's "well-thought-out"edness, nice first post.

I just want to expain a few things about why I'll commonly refer to faith as a good thing. I'll go for the short version first, tell me if you don't buy it.

You've obviously thought the issue through and asked yourself many questions. May I ask then, what did you answer when asked "who is to say that logic is valid?" or "what if we ARE in the matrix (or something similar)?".

I have never come across a reasonable argument as to how one properly addresses these somewhat ridiculously hypothetical questions. The problem is IMO at the core of philosophy you have to be able to answer them. Since you really can't, philosophy is somewhat of a stalemate and well, that leads me directly to nihilism. Now, I'm a bit of an obsessive thinker, so I had a very difficult time with this connundrum. I desperately needed to find a building block upon which to build a reasonable philosophy.

I thought "what the fuck?" and "why it gotta be all like that and shit?". Later I realized the most reasonable possible assumption or as I even later realized "issue of faith", is to assume that "I am, therefore I think." Though in day to day dealings this might not be considered an assumption, I'm sure you can see that it is. That is the faith I'm speaking of. I have faith for instance, that this conversation is real. I have faith that logic and reason are the path to "enlightenment" or "being an awesome abstract entity who is interfaced with some of the same common elements of existence as the others who are apparently abstract entities who are similar to me" *giggle*. Eh, you get it. It's a good point damnit, just accept it! LOL

So really, I'm just saying that I believe at a level more fundamental than most people ever consider, one has to have faith in certain thins in order to be a valid mental construct. In other words, you couldn't build a mind on pure nothingness, even as an abstract entity. It's sort of the paradox of perception and consciousness to me, that we can be but we can never really know. The entire connudrum simplifies though, on just the assumption that (and I know I won't phrase this as pefectly logical so please pardon) "reason is valid" and all that is implicit thereof. Hence my claim "I have faith in reason". So I kind of have an argument and entire context to support myself in discussion. Hehe, to me the really interesting part is the "all that is implicit thereof", but that's a whole different conversation I guess.

Eh, maybe I'm just blowing smoke up my ass. *raises brow*

LOL

Actually the way I look at it is: This is an argument I came up with, can you fuck it up? Please, fuck it up... I want to find a new theory. So it happens and I re-theorificate. I've been getting the argument together for a while now and I think it's coming along. I think there is a lot of room in there to actually do a lot of damage to theism from a logical standpoint. Hehe, always dreaming of the holy grail of using reason to crush theism! Oh shit, did I say that out loud? *damns self for lack of discipline*

I was supposed to keep the plot secret. Pardon.

Okay man, I'll shut up.

 

Good evening wesmorris,

I don't hypothezize "religion" (organized religion sickens me) as the status quo sees it defined as, but rather the existance of "an omniscient higher power" than that of a human.
I did say "I believe this to be God" (the God of the "Holy Bible"). However, it's what I believe in (there is a higher power greater than a human), not who(God) I believe this higher power is, is the crux of my proposal.

Got it, and I agree.

I am talking about having the ability to think of things that are impossible for us to achieve.

Yes perhaps I'm being a credit to my gender, but there's some clarification to this later on in this post.

I'm all for there potentially being a world like this before "this" was here.

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with either of those questions. :b I actually had a better more credible response, but I accidently deleted it. Darn it all.

Fair enough

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why do I deduce this to God. It's a possible reason as to how life as we know it (and don't know it) was created. Something created it IMO.

Okay I gave my conclusion, what is yours if I may ask?

It doesn't mean I quit trying to find out. And I agree, faith sounds like it could be a crutch. I don't follow a religion. I don't put ashes on my head, I don't pray to a dead mother, I don't meditate myself to a different level of consciousness, I don't give up something for Lent. I do read the Bible. That isn't organized religion as I see it.

They are natural. And foot fetishes are nasty.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so facetious and instigative.

We've all seen the same evidence (some more than others). I suppose it's the interpretation we choose to subscribe to.

But you just said, "nothing can really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt".

I don't argue evolution, I question it. I am not out to convert anyone in cyber-land to anything.

 

Sciforums is my bible, and my confessional.

Howdy havalina!

I would call that "imagination". Uhm... well, that's a whole other thread. I'll just leave my opinion on "imagination" out of it because it's very involved.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll just say that I can halfassed explain why and how it works... in a general sense anyway... but even that is too involved for me at the moment. Please forgive my sorry ass. *smiley* (I used up my smiley limit, damned server!)

My point was that I think a relationship of servitude is demeaning. Partnership is much more condusive to re-enforcing the idea of personal responsibility IMO, but I don't have reason to believe of any omniscient being. Frankly the idea seems silly to me. Nothing personal obviously. *smiley* (I used up my smiley limit, damned server!)

I've done that several times, quite annoying. Argh!

Why must you give your idea as if it is worthy of consideration? Hehe, I don't mean by me.. I mean by YOU. Shouldn't you look around for clues? If you do, the reasonable clues lead to the following conclusion: There is not enough data to make a reasonable conclusion as to the "god" connundrum. Why do you accept something as "probably true" like that? I mean, if all those christians are thinking it's the right idea.. it's GOT to be wrong, right? LOL

You mean my theory? Oh shit, hehe, I've posted it all at some point I think... man, I've got theories.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Check out "Love and Hate" and "Paradox" and "Mind is the fifth dimension" for some of my hypothetical trash talking.

I can buy that I suppose, sounds a little strange to me, but who am I? *shrug*. Oh yeah.. I'm me. Okay. You get your bible on then sister.

That's not a valid conclusion from your argument that natural desires have corresponding objects. First of all, not all desires have associate objects. My desire for knowledge for instance, doesn't neccesarily have a particular object associated with it. My desire for "peace on earth", "good will towards people" and "freedom" don't have objects associated with them. That's what I was getting at.

You BASTARD. Hehe, I think I'm a lot worse than you about that... don't sweat it. My skin is pretty thick, especially with all the shit I deal out!

That's a very confounded assertion there IMO. Hehe, go back and pick that apart. By definition, we all see things differently. Further, you inherently are subscribing to your OWN interpretation, even if you think it is someone elses.

Certainly, but my statement was in reference to "plausibility".

Have you really really read up on it? Have you thought about it in terms of how feasible it is? Did you know for instance, that a computer model of evolution can evolve virtual species... just from a few basic rules? I didn't feel like you were trying to convert me... I'm just asking you're really interested in knowing, or if you're happy with taking the blue pill. All I ask (and this is impossible really) is that you admit which pill you took... *smiley* (I used up my smiley limit, damned server!)

 

WesMorris-

I think I can help you out on this, by explaining this in detail. Thanks for bringing it up!

From the Blind WatchMaker by Richard Dawkins

This book contains a software purchase coupon for a Biomorph computer program for Apple Macintosh.

All three programs have the basic nine 'genes' necessary to produce trillions of biomorphs. The Macintosh version of the program also possesses a range of additional genes, producing 'segmented' biomorphs(with segmentation gradients) and biomorphic images reflected in various planes of symmetry.

Dawkins himself was extremely surprised at the results from the program. They showed him the power of cumulative evolution.

"When I wrote the program, I never thought that it would evolve anything more than a variety of tree-like shapes. I had hoped for weeping willows, cedars of Lebanon, Lombardy poplars, seaweeds, perhaps deer antlers. Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possilbe. With a wild surmise, I began to breed, generation after generation from whichever child began to look like an insect My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance. I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes."

If you want more information just ask, i know this was broad, but i just wanted to give the general idea.

 

What a great topic to discuss!

I have indeed asked myself that sort of question, and the answer I got had nothing to do with having to believe or not believe something. Believing something was right out.

I'll assume you're familiar with the Plato's allegory of the cave. In it, he likens the things that we percieve to shadows painted on the wall, and that the 'real' thing is not immediately knowable. I think there are several flaws in his analysis of this allegory, but as long as we understand the setup, you should understand where I'm coming from.

Plato's point (wrong or right) was that the things that we look at and see are not knowable, but he leaves a bit out (though either he, or socrates.. or someone) touches on it later. There are things that do not cast 'shadows' as they were. Things that only exist in the mind of an individual.

Now, when an individual defines a 'thing', they can claim absolute knowledge of it. That is, if I create a new word, 'schnarznabble' and then give a definition for it 'the stuff you pull out of a drain when it's been clogged up', then that concept is understood in it's entirety by me. I no longer have to worry about faith, or belief. It's not an unknowable thing, it's been defined. What it means/stands for/etc is an absolute fact. This is constrained to an individual though.

The neat thing here though, is that these concepts can be shared. The concept of what 'one' is, is a good example. I think we can all claim that we have a fairly reasonable idea of what people mean when they say the word 'one'.

Now, here's the trick; remove the barrier that language presents. Reduce one to a concept without a single word to describe it, and just treat it as concept "X". Now, anyone else who has a concept identical to the first person also has concept "X". In fact, even if those people no longer exist, or never existed in the first place, the ideas that comprimised that concept still exist as concept "X". This is the idea of an absolute concept; the fact that it exists is proof that it exists.

It's a neat little philosophical dodge, but it's valid enough. Atomic existance and proof in one. This works even if we're "in the matrix" since an absolute concept is self-validating.

Wow. What a longwinded backstory. This concept of absolute concepts is interesting, though, and used extensively in subjects like math, and defining the rules of logic, as well as many other facets.

So, it's true in a literary sense to say that 'I believe in logic', but it would be more accurate to say that because logic is a system which defines both absolute concepts, and the absolute concepts of how those absolute concepts may interact, it is self-evident. Even if I were to 'disbelieve' in logic, it would still exist, solely self-supporting. In the language of logic itself, you could claim that logic is 'true' in the sense that it is self-validating.

When a concept is true in that sense, it doesn't need something so pithy as my belief to exist. On the other hand, I can depend on it's validity when I attempt to make a choice or attempt a proof.

Well, who's to say what is required to make a mind? Find that concept, describe it for yourself, and then you can know - true or false, as it were - whether or not a mind is capable of existing by itself. Whether or not that concept is the same concept of 'mind' that others share is probably a point of discussion though.

I agree, insofar as the concept I have of a mind requires ~something~ to exist upon, but absolute concepts do not.

Lemme one-up you here, on a sidenote that hasn't got much to do with religion at all; if your definition of a mind includes a person 'plugged into the matrix', does it include a person who exists in a star-trek like holodeck, where they are created by a computer, and part of their creation includes lack of knowledge that they're controlled by a computer? Worse, Can you prove that's not what we are? =3

Getting back to the whole religious debate though, logic will only get you so far. After a point, you run out of absolutely valid concepts to rely on. From that point on, everything is opinion, theory, or assumption.

It seems, in fact, that when you drive down to it, the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore, those that chose to believe one way or ther other are .. more or less .. in unassailable towers, only insofar as they claim faith alone as their reason for believing in the existance or non-existance of god.

Though I believe that there is no god, I have no sort of logical rationale to really back that up, and in fact, I think that illogical ideas like that are probably detrimental (see previous post). If I were sorely pressed though, I'd claim that it seems to be a positive choice based on the benefits you get from believing in the existance of a god or not, on a personal level.

(of course, religions are great on a larger than personal level, because they represent the capibilities of a group, and a group that is deep rooted, at that. Religion is a wonderful tool for shaping how people act and think. Better than guns.)

Do believe:
Good bits:
-You potentially recieve a sense of 'understanding' - something to fill a human need for a 'belief system' hole.
-You get to judge others and claim a rationale (based on an unknowable assumption) to determine your moral and ethical valuations of the judgement.
Bad bits:
-Humans rally against hyprocracy. Holding others to certain moral standards implies holding yourself to them as well
-Life is an ephemeral stage, and you don't get to live it the way you want, but rather like a slave to someone else's standards. If you follow the standards well enough, usually you get to live the way you want (sorta) but if not, then you're usually subjected to concepts of pain, torture, and other negative things.
- the concept of 'understanding' is shattered each time actual life shows you something that you don't believe your god would have wanted (tragic death, death of any sort, faithful people being hurt or impoverished, etc)

Don't believe:
Good bits:
-You get to live life for yourself, and do what you want.
-Isn't that enough?
Bad bits:
- You have to deal with the fact that you are (cosmically speaking) alone in the world, exist without purpose or reason, and the totality of your personal existance will end when you die. (Nilhilists see this as a positive, even after adding the fact that the things you do while you're alive are eventually going to be forgotten, removed, erased .. no matter HOW special you were in life)

So ... weighing in the options, on a purely personal level, it seems most rational to chose disbelief in god. The benefits outweigh the penalities. I'd rather at least believe I was free to do what I want, than believe I was a slave in some sort of cosmic final exam.

Anyone care to disagree?

 

... it's all faith...

You think the concept of soul arises from higher brain function – not everyone does. Can you say why? Is it because this is the only indicator from current scientific knowledge ‘I[Y]O’?

Man, you need to read that thread “God=The Universe”. But anyways, aren’t all things objective implicitly subjective? Objective is simply subjective by a factor of wide approval. Don’t you agree? Like one and ten. 1 is one. 10 is ten, or 10 ones? 10 times 1? One is a factor of ten. They’re both numbers. Would 10 exist without 1? Heck, do numbers exist? [This is how an agnostic should think] Here I know I’m not detracting in any way from your point that it’s all in your head. But how do you know?

Cris would think so.

Actually, you seem relatively o.k. in the head so, no, I don’t think that.

Similarly, I use my Christian faith in God and common sense [I wouldn’t call it logic – don’t particularly favour the term – just like religion as far as I’m concerned].

Good for you. Question is how do you know that when you think such a thing you are being dishonest with yourself? Please, tell me. Strange? For me nothing is strange.

Depends on what you know to be something of ‘substance’. Can you give me examples?

’Logic damage?’ How do you resolve the dilemma that a guy can’t finish a race? Well logic might say you can’t. Ever heard of it? You have 1/2 (half) distances to cover till you develop a geometric progression – which has no end. It stumped Cris.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

’Yeah, aint it cool?’

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

– quote from Broken Arrow – the movie.

 

Nice view, rife with probs as far as I can see but too many to get into at the moment. What is the stuff and what is a drain? You have to define those from nothing too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That absolute knowledge is spurious as far as I can tell.

-Edit-

I disagree here. How do you know that the ideas would still exist even when the people who are supposed to formulate them aren't around? I agree that back in the rennaisance when galaxies didn't exist they indeed existed. Or did/do they? Neutrinos didn't exist before 1920? But hey they did. Now if Wolfgang Pauli didn't hypothesise their existence they'd still exist. Or would they? That's some serious crap to grasp [the quote]. That just doesn't follow in my head. In my head if the people didn't exist concpet X, or better yet concept " ", could or could not exist but we wouldn't know at all.

 

Devilbunny,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

Neat and to the point.

Bunnies?

 

yay bunnies!

I wish certain people would make their certain posts a certain amount shorter so it would seem so hopless to read through this thread.

WHAT HAPPENED TO PURGATORY? Did that just vanish? Why is it either heaven or hell, and why are all you religious people so sure that you know what happens after we die, huh?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In the manner in which I used the phrase "having absolute knowledge of a thing" I refer simply to the fact that if I create the definition of a thing, then I've defined it in it's entirety. That is, if I define a word, it is no more or no less than exactly what I say it is at that moment in time (Lewis Carol anyone?). Based on that premise, one could say that I know absolutely everything about the word there is to know, since I've defined absolutely everything that can be known about it.

It's really a simple concept. If you form an idea, you know everything there is to know about that idea. Granted, it may be difficult to explain to others, or insure that your concept is the same concept that another person has after that explanation. It becomes increasingly difficult when you pick something that is dependant upon other concepts as well - like the personal concept of a 'drain' and 'stuff'.

It's not that other people couldn't share your concept, just that it's difficult to have an exact match, and more difficult to test that it's the same.

Well the difference between having a concept and having an absolute concept is that the absolute concept will be the same for every person or thing that can conjecture it. The concept of "One" for example, is the same for everyone, though it may be called by different names. If no one was around, all life destroyed, and somehow new half reptilian creatures spawned from the miasma and became conscious, self-aware, and sentient, their concept of "One" would be the same thing. In this case, the non temporal nature of the concept of "One" makes it an absolute concept.

I grant you that someone has to actually think about it to be aware of it, but it doesn't require someone thinking about it to validate it, like dictionary definitions would, for example. The concept is valid without having a thinker think it.

Thus, it can never correspond to 'real world' issues, like 'what is a galaxy' or 'what is a neutrino' or even 'what's gravity'. Those concepts only exist because people generated them, and as proof, they're fairly pliable. They change as time goes on, and mean different things to different people. It's a malleable concept, not an absolute one.

Most math by itself represents a collection of absolute truths though, and then the application of those truths in interesting ways. Well, boring ways, mostly, but hey, maybe it's interesting to some people. Maybe that's why you hear things like "The Golden Ratio", and the sort. Spicing up math.

Factor of 10! *BAM!*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

FYI, I WILL get back to this thread, I just haven't had time to properly address it.

 

Can't spend the time to read all of the posts...wow, there are 82 pages! Anyway...proof of a man named 'Jesus' doesn't prove anything about there being a God, you fool.

 

Finally saying stuff, yay!

Firstly, dig your analysis. Nicely done. Now I'll see if I can stir up some more crap.

I'm with you there, hence my seemingly dogmatic adherence to "all knowledge is tentative".

Actually no I wasn't familiar with it. I haven't read as much philosophy as most people who think of themselves as philosophical. Honestly I don't have the time or really the interest. I'm more interested in minimizing my exposure to the key points while developing my own bullshit.

I'll certainly agree with that.

Hmm.. I don't think so. For instance, what if I highjack your word and subclass it. It's only the stuff that comes out of PINK sinks or no, really it's the stuff that comes out of toilets, not sinks. You cannot fully define it in that manner except within the schema that exists within YOUR mind... I might comprehend your definition or hijack it to mutate it into something different. I'll just say that each person who subjegates the word gives it a life of it's own so to speak.

Even at the individual level it's maybe debatable, since their definition of the word may change over time. To an extent words in the individual evolve as the knowledge that encompasses them changes over time... don't you think?

Hmm.. you've got a good point, but let's think about it for a second. Ask my two year old daughter what "one" is. I bet she doesn't understand it as you or I might. I'd say that ANY word will have slightly different connotations in your "mental schema" than in mine.

Excellent point however... I've seen this and I think this is the rub: What is the point of an abosolute concept if there is no consciousness to host it? Wouldn't it literally be nothing? I look at this very strangely I'd imagine.. for instance, each conception of the word or "how every host interprets it" is a component of the all that the word really is... add them all up.. and there's how the word is, regardless of the intent by which is was promoted. Even the concept of "x" is representative of a plethora of different conceptions, each of which I'm sure has a slightly different spin - representative of the "mental schema" of the host of the word (or idea or whatever).

Actually I still say you're avoiding the issue of faith. I'll put it to you like this. You've basically just said what I say in a different way. "it doesn't matter if we're in the matrix or whatever, because to me it SEEMS absolutely convincing that I'm not... if new evidence appears later to the contrary, then okay.. but for now, this is what appears to be real... thusly I dub it as such." To me, that's a pretty big statement of faith. You've said "I think this is real" without any means by which to really justify it. We'll play the circular game of "yeah but this" and then "no but you're just being tricked" and "yeah but this too" and "no, you're STILL being tricked" until at some point you have to say "no, I just believe it's real"... hence your point of faith. Of course, you don't HAVE to believe it's real, but isn't that another argument? Shit, I'm getting lost in my head here. Throw me a rope!

Just to be repetetive "If there were no one there to employ it, would reason be a valuable tool?". I say no, because without someone there to employ it, value cannot be assigned.

So, it's true in a literary sense to say that 'I believe in logic', but it would be more accurate to say that because logic is a system which defines both absolute concepts, and the absolute concepts of how those absolute concepts may interact, it is self-evident. Even if I were to 'disbelieve' in logic, it would still exist, solely self-supporting. In the language of logic itself, you could claim that logic is 'true' in the sense that it is self-validating.

Certainly not, but it doesn't do you much good if you don't believe in it right? 1 + 1 is always 2 but if you don't recognize that you'll never see it coming right? I guess fundamentally it's a statement of acknowledgement to say "yes 1 + 1 is 2"... though you don't negate potential impacts on you, there is no way to see them coming if you don't acknowledge the system of math. I can think of a lot of people who would stick their head in the sand rather than face truths they'd rather not hear. Though your "absolute concept" exists.. does it really? What if it does but I've never been exposed to it? Is that duality?

Hehe, YOU can because you're smart enough to recognize... but again, who is to say what is true. Look at "thevisitor", to him, the only truth that can be gained is from the bible. Everything we're talking about right now is complete shit to him. Do we invalidate his perspective? I don't think so, the man still gets a vote at the polls right?

Well, I AM the authority.. GAWD. Where's your faith? LOL.. it's a very complicated silly idea of mind that I'll explain later.

Indeed. I'm sure it's been discussed on the board. Anyone have a relevant link?

IMO, you've just journeyed into something VERY interesting. You might think I'd disagree from what I've typed thus far, but actually I mostly agree with you.. but in a weird way. I think that you are correct, absolute concepts actually exist independent of any interpretation in abstract space and that we tend to stumble across them like most explorers in a new world. Eh, but again, that's a different discussion. I still think however that the concepts in 'abstract space' are meaningless or "dormant" until discovered by an explorer of said abstract space like ourselves.

DAMN YOU and your perpetual oneupmanship! (just felt dramatic for a second, pardon)

I gotta go for now. Time to see the punkins.

 

Re: ... it's all faith...

Originally posted by MarcAC
You think the concept of soul arises from higher brain function – not everyone does. Can you say why? Is it because this is the only indicator from current scientific knowledge ‘I[Y]O’?

I don't know what 'I[Y]O' is. My why is because it's what seems most plausible given what you mentioned: It is the best indicator from current scientific data. My addition is that it is also and amazingly complex biological computerish kind of thing, and that consciousness arises from the interactions within it. I'm not sure about the "soul" really, I don't know what that is. I'm pretty sure though that current science can in no way explain conscoiusness, so what ever it is that we experience is unexplainable. Most people contribute this to a "soul". I just think of it as "unknown aliveness junk"..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Man, you need to read that thread “God=The Universe”. But anyways, aren’t all things objective implicitly subjective? Objective is simply subjective by a factor of wide approval. Don’t you agree? Like one and ten. 1 is one. 10 is ten, or 10 ones? 10 times 1? One is a factor of ten. They’re both numbers. Would 10 exist without 1? Heck, do numbers exist? [This is how an agnostic should think] Here I know I’m not detracting in any way from your point that it’s all in your head. But how do you know?

I might read that thread if I had a clue where to find it. Are you sure you got the name right? I bet I posted in it. This damn search engine sucks.

An agnostic isn't required by that belief to constantly ask "do numbers exist" but only needs to allow for the possibility that they might not. I will state again though, that term 'agnostic' really testifies to one's position regarding epistemology rather than matters of religious beliefs.

Cris would think so.

Pfft... what does he know???

LOL
Actually, you seem relatively o.k. in the head so, no, I don’t think that.

Thanks for the halfassed endorsement. LOL I think you're kind of somewhat intellectualishly unchallenged to an extent too...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Similarly, I use my Christian faith in God and common sense [I wouldn’t call it logic – don’t particularly favour the term – just like religion as far as I’m concerned].

My only real beef with that is that the belief in "god" and especially "christianity" has no basis in reason. They are fundamental assumptions that are to me completely unfounded and worse.. actually inhibiting to the earnest quest for truth. Consider any problem with an infinite number of answers, if you make assumptions regarding the hypothesis "christianity is the faith for me" or "god is real" or things to that effect, you exclude a large body of potential truths. I think that regarding the questions at hand, such assumptions extremely undesirable.

Good for you. Question is how do you know that when you think such a thing you are being dishonest with yourself?

I know because making any unreasonable and significant assumption regarding the creation of the universe is unwarrented given the lack of evidence available to formuate an argument.

Depends on what you know to be something of ‘substance’. Can you give me examples?

By "question of substance" in this context I meant "what existed before the universe" or "is the bible an authentic religious document ordained by the creator of the universe?". That kind of thing. The thing that turns me off the most about the bible for instance is that it is the freakin blueprint for all that is good propaganda, yet that fact seems to be ignored by most of the readers. Seems pretty cult-like to me.


’Logic damage?’ How do you resolve the dilemma that a guy can’t finish a race? Well logic might say you can’t.
Ever heard of it? You have 1/2 (half) distances to cover till you develop a geometric progression – which has no end.

What is the exact challenge again? I remember seeing it but don't remember it exactly... if he keeps going only half the distance how does he get to the finish line? Something like that.

Well, at the moment I'm thinking the problem is limited by the accuracy of the ability to dilineate two locations along the route from one another. Further, human vision is completely fooled at 60 fps, so anything that couldn't be discernced as a changed in distance in less than that amount of time could never be percieved as a change? Man I just confused the shit out of me.

Oh, and regardless though, logic is reason's bitch. It fails as a tool from time to time whereas IMO, reason never does. Logic says 1/0 does not compute. Reason answers infinity.

’Yeah, aint it cool?’ – quote from Broken Arrow – the movie.

It may be cool, but it's also unreasonable. Not a problem if we're just hypothesizing, but the argument for god is the perpetual stalemate. I'm just arguing that something that is a perpetual stalemate and doesn't have compelling evidence isn't reasonable to be involved with. If you're just in it for security or whatever, that's fine as long as you just admit that to yourself such that you don't end up all self righteous like thevisitor.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What's really messed up is that to try to explain how wrong it is to be self-righteous, I end up sounding self-righeous. To me, that lil comedic tidbit keeps me from taking any of it tooooo seriously. *grin*

 

Eeer... one little titbit... for the Devil

Well... one thing. Interestingly, Christians assume you are free to do what you want, it just has consequences and they assume it is true in a sense greater than that of our immediately apparent world.