Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Sometimes this isn't a fair fight.
Proof that God does not exist.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Again, what part of his definition do you disagree with and why?
What makes it bald?
I supported his definition. I assert that his definition is simple, but OK, and used a dictionary definition, which would indicate common usage, to back up my assertion. I think your assertion that his definition is a bald assertion, apart from being a category error, is a bald assertion.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't think that it's a very good definition because it's too vague. But I don't see it as a "bald assertion", since it doesn't really assert anything. It isn't telling us what the fundamental nature of reality is, only that the fundamental nature of reality is the subject that metaphysics is concerned with.
My own definition of 'metaphysics' would be the the investigation of the most fundamental conceptual categories that we use in trying to conceive of the fundamental nature of reality. In other words, it's an investigation into what physics simply assumes when it sets out to do 'science'. I distinguish it from epistemology which is the investigation of how we come to know things. Cosmology is the study of the origin and development of the universe, and hence seems to straddle the boundary between physics and metaphysics. The question of the origin of the universe is inherently metaphysical, since it revolves around what we mean by 'universe' and 'nothing' and around what our explanatory principles are and how we justify them. But the subsequent development of the universe has become more the province of astrophysics than metaphysics since the Scientific Revolution.
Aristotle got it rolling with his 'Categories' that included things like substance, quantity, quality, relation, location (spatial and temporal), state, action and being acted upon. Even today, physics still makes everyday use of those, seemingly often just assuming them as kind of self-evident and not thinking very deeply about them. (Einstein's relativity was revolutionary since it re-conceived spatial relations like distance and velocity.)
One of the reasons why quantum mechanics seems so weird is that it's hard to conceive of what's apparently happening down there on the micro-scale using the traditional conceptual vocabulary. "Interpreting" quantum mechanics is basically the attempt to translate it into the familiar intellectual categories. And that's proving difficult.
Last edited:
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Edit: LOL, Yazata, just realized that I thought Gawdzilla was making a category error, when in fact he was seeing Metaphysics as a specific claim about the nature of reality. River also thought he was making a specific claim. So Gawdzilla see metaphysics which for him means certain specific irrational claims about the nature of reality and calls it a definition that is a bald assertion. I see his post and think it's an OK shorthand definition of Metaphysics (ie. not that it is a definition of reality). Neither of them understands what Metaphysics means. Glad your post came along, though it took me a bit, your post let me in on the problem. I leave my response untouched below)
"YazataI don't think that it's a very good definition because it's too vague. But I don't see it as a "bald assertion", since it doesn't really assert anything. It isn't telling us what the fundamental nature of reality is, only that the fundamental nature of reality is the subject that metaphysics is concerned with.
If I am defining Metaphysics I am not going to say what the fundamental nature of reality is. I am going to describe the use of the term.
I quoted from an online dictionary
Definition of metaphysics
1a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
I think that is generally the way the term is used and not so distant from River's.
I think his does assert something. It ain't ethics, It ain't politics. It ain't aesthetics. Oddly enough the dictionary included epistemology, which, in agreement with you, I would tend to leave out of metaphysics. I love that you, below, see science as implicitly having a metaphysics, since metaphysics is often used pejoratively, when it should be used neutrally.
My own definition of 'metaphysics' would be the the investigation of the most fundamental conceptual categories that we use in trying to conceive of the fundamental nature of reality. In other words, it's an investigation into what physics simply assumes when it sets out to do 'science'. I distinguish it from epistemology which is the investigation of how we come to know things. Cosmology is the study of the origin and development of the universe, and hence seems to straddle the boundary between physics and metaphysics. The question of the origin of the universe is inherently metaphysical, since it revolves around what we mean by 'universe' and 'nothing' and around what our explanatory principles are and how we justify them. But the subsequent development of the universe has become more the province of astrophysics than metaphysics since the Scientific Revolution.
I think there is still room for metaphysics, meaning as an activity by non-astrophysicists (I would likely also say, non-particle physicists and non-cosmologists also) I mean, what does it mean to say something is physical? I think current scientific knowledge leaves a lot of room for interesting philosophical discussion here and necessary discussion outside the scientific community, since, as you say below and imply above, they may be working from assumptions.
Aristotle got it rolling with his 'Categories' that included things like substance, quantity, quality, relation, location (spatial and temporal), state, action and being acted upon. Even today, physics still makes everyday use of those, seemingly often just assuming them as kind of self-evident and not thinking very deeply about them.
One of the reasons why quantum mechanics seems so weird is that it's hard to conceive of what's apparently happening down their on the micro-scale using the traditional categories. "Interpreting" quantum mechanics is basically the attempt to translate it into the familiar conceptual vocabulary. And that's proving difficult.
talk about fundamental reality issues.
In any case, I thought it was odd to call River's definition a bald assertion. I still think that's a category error. A poor to good definition. A definition that fits or does not fit usage. Vague to clear. Complete to incomplete. Sure, those are criteria of definitions.
But beyond that, I think it's fair enough as a start and does carve out a branch of philosophy as opposed to others.
I went to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, just to see if they included epistemology which I would not (not that it's easy to keep out in some ways) and found this as the first sentence....
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.
Which made me laugh.[/QUOTE]
"YazataI don't think that it's a very good definition because it's too vague. But I don't see it as a "bald assertion", since it doesn't really assert anything. It isn't telling us what the fundamental nature of reality is, only that the fundamental nature of reality is the subject that metaphysics is concerned with.
If I am defining Metaphysics I am not going to say what the fundamental nature of reality is. I am going to describe the use of the term.
I quoted from an online dictionary
Definition of metaphysics
1a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
I think that is generally the way the term is used and not so distant from River's.
I think his does assert something. It ain't ethics, It ain't politics. It ain't aesthetics. Oddly enough the dictionary included epistemology, which, in agreement with you, I would tend to leave out of metaphysics. I love that you, below, see science as implicitly having a metaphysics, since metaphysics is often used pejoratively, when it should be used neutrally.
My own definition of 'metaphysics' would be the the investigation of the most fundamental conceptual categories that we use in trying to conceive of the fundamental nature of reality. In other words, it's an investigation into what physics simply assumes when it sets out to do 'science'. I distinguish it from epistemology which is the investigation of how we come to know things. Cosmology is the study of the origin and development of the universe, and hence seems to straddle the boundary between physics and metaphysics. The question of the origin of the universe is inherently metaphysical, since it revolves around what we mean by 'universe' and 'nothing' and around what our explanatory principles are and how we justify them. But the subsequent development of the universe has become more the province of astrophysics than metaphysics since the Scientific Revolution.
I think there is still room for metaphysics, meaning as an activity by non-astrophysicists (I would likely also say, non-particle physicists and non-cosmologists also) I mean, what does it mean to say something is physical? I think current scientific knowledge leaves a lot of room for interesting philosophical discussion here and necessary discussion outside the scientific community, since, as you say below and imply above, they may be working from assumptions.
Aristotle got it rolling with his 'Categories' that included things like substance, quantity, quality, relation, location (spatial and temporal), state, action and being acted upon. Even today, physics still makes everyday use of those, seemingly often just assuming them as kind of self-evident and not thinking very deeply about them.
One of the reasons why quantum mechanics seems so weird is that it's hard to conceive of what's apparently happening down their on the micro-scale using the traditional categories. "Interpreting" quantum mechanics is basically the attempt to translate it into the familiar conceptual vocabulary. And that's proving difficult.
talk about fundamental reality issues.
In any case, I thought it was odd to call River's definition a bald assertion. I still think that's a category error. A poor to good definition. A definition that fits or does not fit usage. Vague to clear. Complete to incomplete. Sure, those are criteria of definitions.
But beyond that, I think it's fair enough as a start and does carve out a branch of philosophy as opposed to others.
I went to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, just to see if they included epistemology which I would not (not that it's easy to keep out in some ways) and found this as the first sentence....
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.
Which made me laugh.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
What's god? The definition is critically important.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thank you for the recognition.
It is great to see you have mastered the quote method it certainly makes a reply much easier.
Many seem to have difficulty in seeing they could be wrong and seem to think that to admit that they are wrong is some form of weakness.
I feel singularly fortunate that I dont think admitting that you have been wrong and making an appropriate appology is anything other than the decent thing to do.
I see my ability, to admit a mistake and offer an appology to anyone that I may have upset, as a unique strength rather than a weakness.
Moreover it is the inability of many religious folk to accept that their scriptures contain errors that really puts me off religion generally...the mind set to me is flawed.
If something is clearly wrong it seems dishonest not to admit that it is wrong.
I get very frustrated when folk try to explain that, for example, slavery has to be seen in the context of the times rather than simply agree that is and was wrong.
And there are various attempted excuses, which there is no need to list, when a simple agreement that something is wrong would be an honest approach.
Also if you can not admit something is wrong, particularly when clearly it is wrong, productive change can never take place and as time goes by that approach leaves so many errors they can out weigh the truths.
I think religion suffers in this way.
I believe one of the key advantages of science is the aspect of it being able to correct a mistake and move forward with a better truth and understanding.
Again thank you for the recognition I certainly do appreciate it.
Alex
Try to find out that entity or concept, which in modern language can resemble with the god ot to its attributes. Why can't we name pending scientific understandings, fundamental forces, elementary particles, atoms, primary molecular forms etc as god/gods/goddesses?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
That would be down-grading science.
No. Just name change in current language.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, my fundament said the same thing when I took Bagels at Monostatins.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You dont need to do that there is a great deal worked out that we are reasonably certain about and if we dont now it gets tagged..say dark matter or dark energy...thats the only place God or Godesses could be hiding...if you say there somewhete else we would need to now where.
Alex
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Alex,
Despite seeking forgiveness on account of old age and indifferent health, you have not stopped taking potshots.
Ok, couple of questions for you.
1. Should an atheist have faith in his wife/partner etc?
2. Apart from legal aspect (and self control) how would you differentiate between a rapist and honorable man?
3. Are you any different from animal when sole purpose of your life is procreation only? [granted that you have acquired materialistic greatness as compared to dogs and pigs.]
4. Dont you swear in the name of God while taking court oath? if so why?
5. You said you read popper, can you science analyze your beliefs or faith?
Despite seeking forgiveness on account of old age and indifferent health, you have not stopped taking potshots.
Ok, couple of questions for you.
1. Should an atheist have faith in his wife/partner etc?
2. Apart from legal aspect (and self control) how would you differentiate between a rapist and honorable man?
3. Are you any different from animal when sole purpose of your life is procreation only? [granted that you have acquired materialistic greatness as compared to dogs and pigs.]
4. Dont you swear in the name of God while taking court oath? if so why?
5. You said you read popper, can you science analyze your beliefs or faith?
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
What makes you think that a theist would come to you (an atheist) and discuss God? I don't think it will ever happen.
It would be worse than a GR specialists going to a layman (devoid of science education) and discussing aLIGO type distortion in the spacetime.
[no distraction towards agnostic debate].
In a present civilized society except for religious fanaticism, you are free to remain atheist. I have no problem with your views that God is non existent, I may laugh at you when you call me a fool just because I believe in God.
Yes. Based on previous experience, one can place tentative trust in a loved partner.
Honorable acts don't include sex with unwilling partners.
As a human being, we can create our own purposes. There is no innate purpose, not even reproduction. And we are animals, just with more intellectual ability.
No one is required to swear to a god in the US court system.
Religious faith is trust in the absence of evidence. Other beliefs are likely subject to empirical analysis. Unless they are trivial and unimportant, then who cares?
Like what?
You need to be more specific.
???
Why should that matter?
More importantly, you should question your beliefs as they require more faith.
Be my guest, as long as you remember the door swings both ways.
It seems that way because you are atheist.
It's a figure of speech, meaning something like "go ahead"
If you want to comprehend God, then you have to comprehend God. the way theists comprehend God. So the burden ision you.
The problem is, you are fundamentally atheist, and while so being, you can not comprehend God, anymore than a blind person need to be not-blind, in order to comprehend sighs.
The alternative is to accept the information from someone whowis in the position you wish tp know more about. But that's a problem for you also. Isn't it?
I've provided quite a lot for you to mull over, but both just goes over your head, and you keep coming back to the same old questions.
Stop sidestepping my responses then.
Go back, see what I have writtenw then ask pertinent questions. Otherwise we can't progress.
We talked about this in another, appropriate thread, and you practically ignored it.
It is the very heart of what your reason is based on.
Your world view is one "without God". Is that a reasonable assumption?
If you are "without God", then either there is no God, or you cannot comprehend God. Either way there is no God. That makes you an atheist, and as long as you remain such, it will alwaysa fundamentallf mean the same thing.
You're trying to comprehend God from the point of view, of "there is no God, meaning you will always end up going round in circles. Just look at your responses
Exactly! Because Basically long as you remain atheist, there can be no comprehension of God.
Just for once, try and adopt a different attitudea Discuss the points I raise in the past, and you'll see ImI'not avoiding anything.
You do, out of politeness, if requested, because you consistently accuse me of being deluded.
Why do you avoid most of what I wrote?
I'm not asking for proof. I'm interested in the thread, and what it claims.
As a theist, take it from me. That's not how you're going to comprehend God. I would be wasting mine, and your time, bringing all that stuff up.
It does, doesn't it?
I offer loads, Alex. But it seems as though you can't see the forests for the trees.
Lols! That's not how one would look at it Alex. Every person is precisely an individual, and are where they are at.
We have to be true to our current level of conscious awareness, and progress from there.
Where did I state this as reality?
You must read what is written, try and see where I'm I coming from, then make pertinent points, or ask pertinent questions.
Then let's engage in proper discussionand prove me wrong.
Jan.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Are youcomplimenting me for still managing to keep to my guns.
I I understand forgiveness should be extended without judgement.
Do you think that I must somehow in an effort to appologise I must also change my belief?
But you are right I take pot shots and dont consider that they are probably cowardly as they are hard to avoid and sometimes come well grouped.
That is much too general for me to provide a meaningful answer further it requies making judgement however to offer a generalised reply possibly of no value, I would think faith is earned just as is trust and say my partner was casual with the truth I may not have faith that their version of facts may be reliable and I would adjust my level of faith.
The love would have faith but that faith can and should have boundaries.
I have a friend who has a drinking problem, I could trust him to look after my house and if he borrowed money he would pay it back but you could not leave him in the house and tell him not to drink your beer and he will promise not to, but when you return the beer will be gone...I trust him I have faith in him as a loyal friend but you must see how one must place a qualification upon that faith or trust.
It seems like a simple question but I will answer honestly.
My responce is really leaning to dismissive but lets say I just think the rapists is a very bad man.
Honestly...no I dont.
I do not accept that a God gave man dominion over the fowl and the beasts nor do I believe man is somehow special.
It is only our ability that makes us the "best" animal, but who is to say technical ability is necessarily smart ...who is to say that whales are not superior...not a bad life style...and if you observe humans they show many animal traits...not in a bad way...its just the way it is.
You probably see it different and so its hard for you to step into my shoes and walk in my world just as it is hard for me to step into your shoes and walk in your world.
But I am entirely happy with that view ... but personaly I feel special but only because I of my pride in surviving and to have had the opportunity to breed successfully and establish two separate blood lines...look at a herd of cows very few bulls survive the battles to breed.
Life is really is that simple when you peel it all back.
No I would not swear on the bible in the name of God in court because our system allows "others" to use a process I recall affimation or something but the the witness is asked to affirm they will tell the truth and recognise if they lie they will be liable to the penalties as they apply to perjury.
So no I dont do what you may have thought.
I think there are scientists who conduct research in understanding why we behave in certain ways.
I have read stuff on why humans seek religion.
I dont think science really needs to get involved until they can observe evidence or work out an equation that helps predict reality, so given belief is intangible I think science probably cant help.
I have a link that I must let you have about the cosmic egg and big bang...it suggests some see the science back handedly proves God...
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Because I assume they could be humble and not talk down to others but clearly I need to adjust my assumption based on observation.
You display unjustified arrogance.
I dont care what you do if you can not explain what you do to another human "layman" what you do you got nothing.
Some experts object to explaining what they do in simple terms as that may seem to degrade thr complexity of their work.
So what are they doing at ligo...if you cant put that in one sentence as a brief overview you are not trying.
The prospect of difficult communication does not wash I am sorry.
Let me say I will only think of you as foolish but certainly not a fool.
Here is that link...keep it secret.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/bib...6/09/15/big-bang-birthed-from-cosmic-egg/amp/
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well if God is important why could he not have an office where you could send mail and why could he not make public appearances...much like the Pope for example.
No matter how you approach it we cant get something that shows Gods involvement past humans say so...and the problem wont go away. ..your evidence is within but you rely on a feeling which is ok that is your right.
Something recent would be nice.
And something recent could be looked at and seen relevant to our times...all the action was thousands of years ago why are there not modern stories to add to the bible?
That makes sense but it also means that in the act of comprehending God you create God...I get it.
I dont like that approach but I get it..you actually do sortta make God up and then by contemplating what you make up it becomes, well not real but exists in the way you imagine...
I think the problem will remain.
Such is the path to enlightenment.
Because I reject most of what you write I guess.
I just want something tangible and you say well there isnt..And I keep asking..its like I am the one asking for banana..what I ask for is not available and yet I keep asking.
I get it now.
Yes lets do that.
There is no God and the fact that there is no God proves that you are wrong.
Alex
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
UFOs: Seventy years, no evidence.
GOD: 14,000,000,000+ years, no evidence.
GOD: 14,000,000,000+ years, no evidence.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
To Rajesh and Jan,
Consider this.
I present here one day and I say that I took your advice and embrassed God and that he spoke to me saying that he has been waiting for me and now that I am in touch he will speak to me and me alone as the only human who has a clue and that my mission is to fix the world and he will support only me....what would you think? What would you say?
And would the question not come ...well why should we believe your delusion we want proof.
Or would you say this is it Alex has talked to God and he will save us..
Is this any more weird than many religious stories.
But thinking about all you have both said I really think it is great that you have answers and even though I dont think you are right no more than you think that I am right ...humans need a belief...even mine is a belief that like yours explains everything to either your or my satisfaction...we need that and having it is important.
It is somewhat unfortunate that my beliefs do not easily match others, and I cite my unhappyiness with the current cosmology, I mean you really cant critisize religion or cosmology without upsetting someone because they, their religion and or cosmology, are their answers...and those answers we can never think they could be wrong..they are our answers...
Well I have all the answers its just that I have forgotton the original question.
No the question is why...the answer is to reproduce ...why? Well that I dont know.
Alex
Consider this.
I present here one day and I say that I took your advice and embrassed God and that he spoke to me saying that he has been waiting for me and now that I am in touch he will speak to me and me alone as the only human who has a clue and that my mission is to fix the world and he will support only me....what would you think? What would you say?
And would the question not come ...well why should we believe your delusion we want proof.
Or would you say this is it Alex has talked to God and he will save us..
Is this any more weird than many religious stories.
But thinking about all you have both said I really think it is great that you have answers and even though I dont think you are right no more than you think that I am right ...humans need a belief...even mine is a belief that like yours explains everything to either your or my satisfaction...we need that and having it is important.
It is somewhat unfortunate that my beliefs do not easily match others, and I cite my unhappyiness with the current cosmology, I mean you really cant critisize religion or cosmology without upsetting someone because they, their religion and or cosmology, are their answers...and those answers we can never think they could be wrong..they are our answers...
Well I have all the answers its just that I have forgotton the original question.
No the question is why...the answer is to reproduce ...why? Well that I dont know.
Alex