he blinded me with SCIENCE! [Archive]

phuckphace

January 6th, 2016, 05:35 AM

I've been waiting for an excuse to start a thread like this, but credit where it's due:

Vlerchan, This thread isn't about science, religion and the supernatural; but, I would like to point you towards Russell's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). That is why science is relevant and I think that supernatural stuff is bullshit and always has a logical, scientific explanation even if we can't see it at first.

SCIENCE! and theology are separate realms for a reason. this is because, owing to the nature of a supernatural being or beings ("God"), his/its/their existence isn't falsifiable and therefore SCIENCE! can't touch it. Russell's teapot as an analogy was only intended to illustrate that God's existence shouldn't be accepted as true merely because it can't be proven false, but the r/atheism trilby-collectors think it's some brilliant logic trap that disproves God (m'lady). none of them are probably aware that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)

I'm an atheist who believes that the existence of God is highly improbable and that he is almost certain to not exist, but I don't know that for a fact and neither does anyone else. in order for me to know that, I'd have to know literally everything there is to know.

tagging everyone who might be interested:

Judean Zealot Vlerchan Oakheart Horatio Nelson Uniquemind Microcosm

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 07:08 AM

I think it helpful to classify the three distinct debates that arise in such discussions. I'm doing this because I notice how frequently the three get mixed together in altogether absurd ways, primarily, of course, by our New - Atheist ignorami.

1) Whether science and it's findings can, in principle, disprove the existence of God.

This is an argument one needs to have only with the stupidest of the new atheists. God, in the classical philosophical tradition, is entirely abstract. God is that force which animates all existence. Definitionally, such an abstraction is entirely independent of the phenomena it generates, and observation of those phenomena can only reveal to us the properties of that which is being observed. What underlies it's very existence is unobservable by scientific method. Scientific method limits itself to the properties of phenomena, while philosophy extends itself to their nature.

Now, scientific discovery can disprove particular narratives, particularly in regards to natural history, but that is entirely irrelevant to the meta-discussion of the existence of the Divinity. The philosophical arguments for the existence of a Maximally Great Being do not depend on the authenticity of any particular scripture, they are powered by Logos. In addition, most intelligent religious people are open to interpreting scripture allegorically, so attacking the fundamentalist readings of creation and miracles is nothing but a straw man re: the intelligentsia.

2) Whether we ought to place value in any methodology but the "scientific method".

This is a very slightly more developed argument, primarily aimed at promoting skepticism and agnosticism, but in most narratives it still falls painfully short. It's essential form is that, having witnessed the success of "empirical" science, scientific method should be the only method we use to ascertain truths about the universe. Of course, this is clearly fallacious for the primary reason that, just because one method accomplishes much in it's own field, that doesn't mean that it's necessary for success in every field. Saying "Scientific method has been the most successful method for ascertaining the properties of phenomena, therefore it should also be necessary to ascertain their nature" is the equivalent of saying "This broom did such a good job of cleaning my floor that every dentist ought to use it to clean teeth".

Now, perhaps one has a problem with the philosophical methods (such as Bertrand Russell), but that discussion can only begin once we realise that we are entirely leaving the realm of science.

I should also point out that scientific knowledge also relies on a number of philosophical assertions, such as that there is an objective world external to the mind, that the world is ordered in such a regular manner as can be expressed in natural laws, and many others besides. Thus the adherent of 'scientism', cannot, in principle undermine abstraction without undermining science itself.

3) Whether philosophically one can prove or disprove God.

This is what the debate should be. This includes whether noumena can be comprehended by the mind, whether the notion of God is self-defeating, the various ontological and cosmological arguments for God's existence etc. The problem is that the new atheists haven't developed past the first two puerile notions, and until they do so they will continue to make utter fools of themselves. I missed addressing many of the sound bytes, but I'm sure we'll get to them when the GNUs show up in the thread.

tovaris

January 6th, 2016, 08:04 AM

To disprove the existance of Jahve for example can be prety easy via logic "traps".

To disprove a diety is inposible without being or becoming omnibelevilent. #god

To do however enjoy plaing around in theological thaught (even tho im a communist, therfor godles), espacely when you can make a cristian conpletly confuzed using only cristian resoning and the bible. Joly good fun.

About science and theology i believe that in civil science we should NOT alove theology even a wiph, but if theologans want to use science, let them. They need to after all.

northy

January 6th, 2016, 01:58 PM

Post removed.

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 02:12 PM

Kahn

January 6th, 2016, 02:49 PM

everlong

January 6th, 2016, 02:49 PM

and failed me in biology

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 02:54 PM

Personally, I don't believe in any Abrahamic version of God, nor do I believe in any other gods or deities. I will not fool myself into pretending I know, either way, whether or not there exists these Maximally Great Beings, as Judean Zealot called them.

I know what I know and that is nothing at all.

"Proving" the existence of a supreme entity seems futile, to me.

"Maximally Great" is a shout out to Alvin Plantinga and his ontological argument. In these debates I dislike using the word God because of the association with the Abrahamic religions, and the existence of the Deity is unrelated to the truth (or lack thereof) of these religions. I prefer to use more general terms: Divinity, Deity, Cause of causes etc.

dxcxdzv

January 6th, 2016, 03:04 PM

Judean Zealot : Isn't philosophy a science?

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 03:07 PM

Judean Zealot : Isn't philosophy a science?

It's definitely a discipline, but I'm working with the popular definition of science as that which arises from scientific method, which is the natural sciences.

dxcxdzv

January 6th, 2016, 03:16 PM

It's definitely a discipline, but I'm working with the popular definition of science as that which arises from scientific method, which is the natural sciences.
Science is a matter of study, of understanding the world around us and so i assume is philosophy.
"Scientific method" is only about reason and rigor. The idea of science rejecting "god" seems pretty weird to me as it far from being limited to physics or biology.
It might sound simplistic or whatever, I don't know, I'm more an E=mc² guy.

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 03:19 PM

Science is a matter of study, of understanding the world around us and so i assume is philosophy.
"Scientific method" is only about reason and rigor. The idea of science rejecting "god" seems pretty weird to me as it far from being limited to physics or biology.
It might sound simplistic are whatever, I don't know, I'm more an E=mc² guy.

I agree with you, but when we're talking about science in this thread we're addressing people (Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking...) who see philosophy in general as excluded from "science", which is supposed to be the "proper" way to understand anything.

Horatio Nelson

January 6th, 2016, 03:52 PM

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 03:56 PM

I'd like to say, I find this thread enjoyable. I won't pretend to know everything about anything. But I feel the attempt to disprove a God is futile. As previously stated, there is no way to prove or disprove it in a "scientific" or "physical" manner. So why put so much effort into it?

Because they're both too lazy and to afraid to see whether philosophy has what to offer, so they have to find a for the physical sciences to make the question irrelevant.

northy

January 6th, 2016, 03:59 PM

northy

You so snarky. When you have something meaningful to say I'll be glad to hear it.

In the meantime, please don't waste our time. The OP began this thread for an intelligent debate/discussion, not for people to post whatever dribbled out of the nearest goat's arse. When one puts time and effort into posting well, it's rather annoying when someone copy-pastes a wall of shit.

-----

Unless you see something intelligent here that you would like me to respond to? If so, you'll have to point it out, because I can't find it.
Well, as you refuse to acknowledge anything I post as intelligent, instead swearing at me, I don't really want to discuss things with you.
I think what I posted was constructive to the thread, fair enough if you disagree, but there is no need to swear.

Jinglebottom

January 6th, 2016, 04:11 PM

-_- I don't see how it was intelligent either...

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 04:12 PM

Well, as you refuse to acknowledge anything I post as intelligent, instead swearing at me, I don't really want to discuss things with you.
I think what I posted was constructive to the thread, fair enough if you disagree, but there is no need to swear.

You're right. I do apologise. Nonetheless, I see nothing of any seriousness in that post, and I would appreciate it if you pointed me to a particular segment of the post you wish to discuss.

Uniquemind

January 6th, 2016, 05:55 PM

I think the reason science is known for becoming anti-god anti-supernatural.

Is because god and supernatural got lumped together, and when various rituals of the occult got called out and disproven for the stupid crap they were, God got lumped in with the concept of stupid people who don't understand science, believe religion and the concept of God.

Ex:

1. elixirs for immortality = science said those people in objective actuality drank lead potions with other carcinogens and toxins.

2. Animal slaughter human sacrifice = science says that was good mean, that was a perfectly good child ya just killed there.

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 06:03 PM

Uniquemind

Of course, rejecting the Deity because of 'religious malpractice' is as fallacious as rejecting medicine because blood-letting used to be a common practice.

Morever, a point I try to make over and over is that the Deity and religious worship are two practically unrelated subject; the only relation is that the latter is (for the most part) predicated on the presumption of the former. Thus a challenge to religious worship has as much relevance to discussion of the Deity as the challenge to the Geocentric model is relevant to the assertion that the planets exist.

tovaris

January 6th, 2016, 06:25 PM

Judean Zealot : Isn't philosophy a science?

Yes of course. And at the same time. No whatever do you mean.

Uniquemind

January 6th, 2016, 06:25 PM

tovaris

January 6th, 2016, 06:26 PM

I'd like to say, I find this thread enjoyable. I won't pretend to know everything about anything. But I feel the attempt to disprove a God is futile. As previously stated, there is no way to prove or disprove it in a "scientific" or "physical" manner. So why put so much effort into it?

A god you are corect. But God as in with G not g, also known as Jahve i can disprove easy.

Judean Zealot

January 6th, 2016, 06:27 PM

A god you are corect. But God as in with G not g, also known as Jahve i can disprove easy.

Make my day.

Porpoise101

January 6th, 2016, 07:07 PM

A god you are corect. But God as in with G not g, also known as Jahve i can disprove easy.
Tell me so I can steal your idea and get ALL the book deals pls

phuckphace

January 6th, 2016, 09:23 PM

Babs

January 6th, 2016, 09:34 PM

Personally, I don't believe in any sort of god. I don't see how it could be possible.

But I think if anything, science is agnostic in a way. There is not enough evidence to confirm that a god either exists or doesn't. That doesn't have to be forever; maybe one day we'll fully understand the origins of the universe, but for now I'm alright with science being agnostic.

Microcosm

January 6th, 2016, 09:52 PM

Uniquemind

January 6th, 2016, 10:38 PM

Uniquemind,

Religious worship and methods of practicing religion are the human interpretation of the deity rather than the actual expression of a deity's character(hope that makes sense).

-

Association with a religion seems to be about faith for most people, and for most others just a touch of reason. There are very few who find the balance between the two.

Most arguments for religion and a deity seem really abstract and they kind of confuse me. Plus, I'm not very well versed on them. So, there's not a whole lot I can contribute to this thread in terms of "proving" or "disproving" God. I will say though that my opinion is that it is impossible to truly do either. That seems to be the default agnostic approach.

Well that's the problem, because religious groups or communities, do NOT see it that way neither do they preach that their form of worship is an interpretation of that deity.

In fact, in many lines of scripture, it is stated the opposite is true, that you perform said ritual or action, BECAUSE that's the way the deity is communicating TO YOU, not you to them. Hence the ritual teaches you something you didn't know before you were taught the meaning of whatever that pastor/father/priest/rabbi/imam's point of their lecture-sermon was.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 04:22 AM

Religious worship and methods of practicing religion are the human interpretation of the deity rather than the actual expression of a deity's character(hope that makes sense).

I would word this slightly differently. "Religious worship and methods of practicing religion are the human interpretation of the duties which arise from the Deity's existence rather than the actual expression of the Deity's essence".

Most arguments for religion and a deity seem really abstract and they kind of confuse me. Plus, I'm not very well versed on them. So, there's not a whole lot I can contribute to this thread in terms of "proving" or "disproving" God. I will say though that my opinion is that it is impossible to truly do either. That seems to be the default agnostic approach.

That's because you've been raised on empiricism. All of your education was based on the empirical. Even mathematics, which for so long had been the gateway to abstraction is now taught as if it were an empirical discipline. Without training in abstraction, the concepts seem vague and hazy.

Well that's the problem, because religious groups or communities, do NOT see it that way neither do they preach that their form of worship is an interpretation of that deity.

You have to realise that interpretation of religion falls under one of two categories: popular or developed. The advanced forms of religion are unknown to most people, who carry on with highly simplistic interpretations. Just look around. Most Christians can't explain to you Aquinas, nor most Jews Maimonides, nor Muslims Avicenna. The philosophical interpretations of religion are too abstract for the majority of followers, so the fine points get parodied in a cruder way.

Take prayer for example. The Deity is not like a human being who 'feels bad' or 'changes it's mind'. All of these run against the necessity of Divine Simplicity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/). Maimonides views prayer as something abstract: That which the Deity does is what is most necessary at that time for the individual. Sometimes an individual will receive challenges, for the purpose of getting him to return his mind to the Deity. Thus, when we have an issue we direct our thoughts towards the Deity and relate It towards the problem. In doing so, we enhance our comprehension of the absolute power held by the Deity, and as a natural result of that enlightenment, the problem is removed, as it is no longer needed - the person has improved themself.

Most people would not be able to appreciate this, so we tell them of God as if He were a cosmic patriarch, we say God 'loves them', 'listens to them', and has 'mercy on them', which is really just a code for a natural mechanism which arises from the Deity. Maimonides calls these things 'truths of utility' as opposed to ' absolute truths'.

In fact, in many lines of scripture, it is stated the opposite is true, that you perform said ritual or action, BECAUSE that's the way the deity is communicating TO YOU, not you to them. Hence the ritual teaches you something you didn't know before you were taught the meaning of whatever that pastor/father/priest/rabbi/imam's point of their lecture-sermon was.

Maimonides, for one, sees prophecy as a heightened form of enlightenment. When we speak of the Deity 'talking', it is absurd to think of it as actual speech - again, that is an impossibility when taking into account Divine Simplicity. What we mean is that we achieve a clarity of the reality of things as if the Deity were speaking to him.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 05:08 AM

Make my day.

Jew or cristin?
Ima asume you want the cristian version.
Ok so God is all powerfull and perfect right? Ok so if god is all powerfull he also isnt, because if he wasnt he wouldnt be perfect or all powerfull.
This is the wariation ot the famous, can God make a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift.
Tell me so I can steal your idea and get ALL the book deals pls

Look above.

Also let me see, ah yes. In the bible when God is praied to sjoe up other nonexistin beals he lughts a gigant pile of wet wood on fire. Build a gigant pile of wood, slaughter a cow, place it on the pile, soke the thing with water, pray for 30min, if it doesnt conbust ther is no god

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 05:15 AM

Jew or cristin?
Ima asume you want the cristian version.
Ok so God is all powerfull and perfect right? Ok so if god is all powerfull he also isnt, because if he wasnt he wouldnt be perfect or all powerfull.
This is the wariation ot the famous, can God make a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift.

What?

(Also, being unable to do something is not a quality, it's a fault. Being free of faults is not a fault)

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 05:20 AM

What?

(Also, being unable to do something is not a quality, it's a fault. Being free of faults is not a fault)

The all powerful aspect arose only with cristeanety.

An all powerfull being is supozed to be able to do anything. Also he is omnypresent and all sorts of omy shit. So if god is all powerfull he also isnt. Because if he was not not existant he would not be all powerfull.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 05:24 AM

The all powerful aspect arose only with cristeanety.

An all powerfull being is supozed to be able to do anything. Also he is omnypresent and all sorts of omy shit. So if god is all powerfull he also isnt. Because if he was not not existant he would not be all powerfull.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the logic here. Are you saying that God isn't all powerful because he can't not be able to do something?

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 05:27 AM

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the logic here. Are you saying that God isn't all powerfull because he can't not be able to do something?

Imagine god a a quantom particle. He should be able to exist and not exist at the same time. For if he is not able to not exist he is not all powerfull. ;-)

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 05:35 AM

Imagine god a a quantom particle. He should be able to exist and not exist at the same time. For if he is not able to not exist he is not all powerfull. ;-)

The mistake you're making is that you're thinking that 'not existing' or 'being able to not exist' is a quality, a strength. It's not. It is a mark of weakness. Saying that God can't be weak isn't a weakness, it's a strength. This argument is a sophistry.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 05:40 AM

The mistake you're making is that you're thinking that 'not existing' or 'being able to not exist' is a quality, a strength. It's not. It is a mark of weakness. Saying that God can't be weak isn't a weakness, it's a strength. This argument is a sophistry.

It is not a question of strength or weeknes. Tho i could argue not existing can b interprated as a strengh. It is a question of beinga ble to do anything.
Same as with the stone. Or "mircowawe a burito so hot he himself could not eat" - homer simpson ;-)

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 05:44 AM

It is not a question of strength or weeknes. Tho i could argue not existing can b interprated as a strengh. It is a question of beinga ble to do anything.
Same as with the stone. Or "mircowawe a burito so hot he himself could not eat" - homer simpson ;-)

Omnipotent doesn't mean that he can do anything. It means that He is all-powerful, and has no weakness. Now, generally speaking, being unable to do something is a weakness, but not if that inability is in fact a strength.

And no, not existing cannot possibly be construed as a strength. That's sloppy thinking.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 05:53 AM

Omnipotent doesn't mean that he can do anything. It means that He is all-powerful, and has no weakness. Now, generally speaking, being unable to do something is a weakness, but not if that inability is in fact a strength.

And no, not existing cannot possibly be construed as a strength. That's sloppy thinking.

If he is unable to do Anything he is not All powerfull. Herefor i can put any sort of shit to this reasoning. Thats what make it fun.
It is not about strengh it is about ability. Can he make a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift?
If he is all powerful he also isnt. This statement i fing inpenetrable. An atempt you have launched about strenghts is not walid, for if he is infenatly strong he is also infenatly week.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 06:09 AM

If he is unable to do Anything he is not All powerfull. Herefor i can put any sort of shit to this reasoning. Thats what make it fun.
It is not about strengh it is about ability. Can he make a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift?
If he is all powerful he also isnt. This statement i fing inpenetrable. An atempt you have launched about strenghts is not walid, for if he is infenatly strong he is also infenatly week.

That is simply untrue. Ability and strength are not synonymous. The ability to be weak is not a strength; it is a sign of contingency.

Your entire argument rests on the proposition that for an omnipotent power to exist, it must be able to do anything. I would appreciate if you can demonstrate that to me.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 06:58 AM

That is simply untrue. Ability and strength are not synonymous. The ability to be weak is not a strength; it is a sign of contingency.

Your entire argument rests on the proposition that for an omnipotent power to exist, it must be able to do anything. I would appreciate if you can demonstrate that to me.

How do you call it when you use and abuse meanings of words? Semantics.
I was alwais tolg god is all powerful, as in "vsemogočen", that litelary meand capablr of anything. If i ask a preest "Ali je Bog vsemogočen" he will say "da" thereforth god can do anything. Now stop ubusing the omnipotent wort, for god cn also be omniinpotant for he is capable of doing anything.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 07:08 AM

How do you call it when you use and abuse meanings of words? Semantics.

Or sophistry. Which is precisely what your argument is.

I was alwais tolg god is all powerful, as in "vsemogočen", that litelary meand capablr of anything. If i ask a preest "Ali je Bog vsemogočen" he will say "da" thereforth god can do anything. Now stop ubusing the omnipotent wort, for god cn also be omniinpotant for he is capable of doing anything.

I'm afraid you've been told wrong then. It seems rather funny that you're lecturing me on how I have to view God, and then attacking that straw man. No proper theologian that I am aware of has ever claimed that God must be able to do everything, even those things which entail weakness. So great, you've disproved a non-existent conception of God. Good for you.

And I'm not "abusing" the word 'omnipotent'. It's Latin for "all powerful". Nowhere does that imply the possibility of weakness. On the contrary, it excludes it.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 08:11 AM

Or sophistry. Which is precisely what your argument is.

.

Exactly, thats why i like it

I'm afraid you've been told wrong then. It seems rather funny that you're lecturing me on how I have to view God, and then attacking that straw man. No proper theologian that I am aware of has ever claimed that God must be able to do everything, even those things which entail weakness. So great, you've disproved a non-existent conception of God. Good for you.

And I'm not "abusing" the word 'omnipotent'. It's Latin for "all powerful". Nowhere does that imply the possibility of weakness. On the contrary, it excludes it.
No its yust my reasoning, if you are All powerfull you can do anything.

Lets mowe away from the existing and not existing at the same time. Tis an old concept,usualy coutered by saying if god is all powerful he also is. Bein able to do anything meand ANYTHING not yust the thing you like.

Now jow about the stone ;-) can god make a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 08:29 AM

Exactly, thats why i like it

You may like it all you want, but it remains fallacious.

No its yust my reasoning, if you are All powerfull you can do anything...

Now jow about the stone ;-) can god make a stone so heavy he himself cannot lift

I don't see how that follows. Being able to be weak is not power, it's weakness. The same answer applies to the stone. Being unable to lift the stone is a weakness, and as such God is incapable of that weakness. That doesn't mean He isn't all-powerful.

Uniquemind

January 7th, 2016, 09:00 AM

Well here's a monkey wrench situation.

The concept of Sin, and why it actually posed a threat for a bit, from a linear perspective.

Also you could examine why God refuses to accept the unrepentant.

Is it a limitation on him, a choice he just refuses to do for some reason despite being technically able to do it, or does he place limitations upon his own power for each promise he makes or defines his character to be?

Again this would only work under a "personal god" but these arguments don't hold up if you believe a more abstract version of the faith.

--

In response to Judean from my earlier posts, I've discovered many a pastor do not think highly of the abstract nature of God, in fact they think it's "new-age" or sounds like "Star Wars myths rehashed to sound smart" and that it's complete heresy.

Porpoise101

January 7th, 2016, 09:11 AM

Also let me see, ah yes. In the bible when God is praied to sjoe up other nonexistin beals he lughts a gigant pile of wet wood on fire. Build a gigant pile of wood, slaughter a cow, place it on the pile, soke the thing with water, pray for 30min, if it doesnt conbust ther is no god
Ah see you should see Judean Zealot's above post. Basically you shouldn't be using scripture in a fundamentalist way to disprove God because it's convoluted and maybe not what was meant.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 09:12 AM

The concept of Sin, and why it actually posed a threat for a bit, from a linear perspective.

Also you could examine why God refuses to accept the unrepentant.

Is it a limitation on him, a choice he just refuses to do for some reason despite being technically able to do it, or does he place limitations upon his own power for each promise he makes or defines his character to be?

Again this would only work under a "personal god" but these arguments don't hold up if you believe a more abstract version of the faith.

I think I understand your question, but I'm not positive. Please explain it a little more. I might add that the abstract understanding of God is shared by the intellectuals of just about every faith.

In response to Judean from my earlier posts, I've discovered many a pastor do not think highly of the abstract nature of God, in fact they think it's "new-age" or sounds like "Star Wars myths rehashed to sound smart" and that it's complete heresy.

Protestants, yes? It's a rather unfortunate business with those. Ever since Luther and Calvin, reformers (with honourable exception of the Anglican church) have vigorously fought against allowing reason to shape theology. As I recall, Luther writes about "That whore, reason". Those people absolutely deserve the scorn they receive from the new atheists, and I will not defend their notion of God.

However, this is not representative of the philosophical interpretations of the Deity as expressed by the Catholics, the Orthodox, and most Jewish and Islamic thinkers.

Edit: Ah, yes. Here is the full quote from Luther:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

What an ass. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies)

phuckphace

January 7th, 2016, 10:00 AM

fucking lol at that Luther quote, dude should've been burned at the stake

I always thought that "heavy stone" thing was stupid because a supernatural being like God doesn't have arms or the constraints of gravity. the Bible LITERALLY says he created the Universe with his will - I'm thinking he could easily "lift" the universe in the same way (and get super swole doing it)

strong posts dudes. theology isn't my main suit (obviously) but it's an enjoyable read.

northy

January 7th, 2016, 11:09 AM

northy - I didn't get a chance to read your first reply before you removed it, but from reading your other posts it's clear you're afflicted with severe grandiose narcissism, which I've found seems to be quite common in the Mensa krew (how do you know someone belongs to Mensa? they'll tell you almost right away).

there are plenty of highly intelligent trained scientists out there who will freely admit that there's much we don't have answers for, which should be your cue to look into maybe acquiring some humility (check yourself before you wreck yourself).

for example take the Big Bang - we've plenty of compelling evidence for the truth of the theory going back as far as it can be tested, but then it stops somewhere around the Planck Epoch. where did the singularity come from? how do we test or replicate that? ask a real scientist irl and they'll be the first to tell you there might not ever be a way to do so, hence an edumacated guess is likely going to be the best we can do.

I'm going to pretend I didn't see that first paragraph.
I disagree with your word 'trained', the majority of the scientific community that are at the forefront of it are conducting actual research, so not necessarily 'trained'.
The big bang is the most likely beginning of the universe, it explains everything. In particular, it explains CMBR and is the only theory (to my knowledge) that does.
Before the Planck Epoch, we have to get a little philosophical. The best we can really do here is model it using quantum theory. Personally, I think that the cyclic universe is the most logical explanation, possible with multiverses. That will be never fully understood by us, it is in a higher dimension to us.
I am open to the idea that a God / Creator caused the start of this and then stopped interacting with the universe. We have tested before to see if the universe is a simulation and at the moment, it seems unlikely.
I think that we are here because the universe is (likely) infinite and if not, the multiverse has to exist and therefore is (uncountably) infinite. There is no reason to think that we are special or significant in the universe. People who say that there had to be a creator because of the 'Goldilocks effect', we have found other planets with earth-like conditions. It is possible that there is life there. I fully believe that we are not the only life in the universe and am happy to have a discussion about this if anyone wishes to.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 11:17 AM

I'm going to pretend I didn't see that first paragraph.
I disagree with your word 'trained', the majority of the scientific community that are at the forefront of it are conducting actual research, so not necessarily 'trained'.
The big bang is the most likely beginning of the universe, it explains everything. In particular, it explains CMBR and is the only theory (to my knowledge) that does.
Before the Planck Epoch, we have to get a little philosophical. The best we can really do here is model it using quantum theory. Personally, I think that the cyclic universe is the most logical explanation, possible with multiverses. That will be never fully understood by us, it is in a higher dimension to us.
I am open to the idea that a God / Creator caused the start of this and then stopped interacting with the universe. We have tested before to see if the universe is a simulation and at the moment, it seems unlikely.
I think that we are here because the universe is (likely) infinite and if not, the multiverse has to exist and therefore is (uncountably) infinite. There is no reason to think that we are special or significant in the universe. People who say that there had to be a creator because of the 'Goldilocks effect', we have found other planets with earth-like conditions. It is possible that there is life there. I fully believe that we are not the only life in the universe and am happy to have a discussion about this if anyone wishes to.

The majority of philosophical arguments for the existence of a Deity (Aquinas's cosmological argument for one) do not rely on the world being finite. Maimonides even writes so explicitly. I've got absolutely no problem with having an infinite regress of universes prior to this one.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 11:47 AM

You may like it all you want, but it remains fallacious.

I don't see how that follows. Being able to be weak is not power, it's weakness. The same answer applies to the stone. Being unable to lift the stone is a weakness, and as such God is incapable of that weakness. That doesn't mean He isn't all-powerful.

Simply, being able to do anything means being able to do anything.
Whats with you and this weeknes stuf? Noone is talking abouth strength, but about ability. If god is unable to make a mezly stone he cannot lift he is Not all powerfull if he makes the stone and is unable to lift it he is not all powerful. The stone cuts at both ends

Ah see you should see Judean Zealot's above post. Basically you shouldn't be using scripture in a fundamentalist way to disprove God because it's convoluted and maybe not what was meant.

Scripture is the only way to prove or disprove god. If it sais in the scripture, the word of god, than i bečoeve it is a fact about god ;-)

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 11:49 AM

Simply, being able to do anything means being able to do anything.
Whats with you and this weeknes stuf? Noone is talking abouth strength, but about ability. If god is unable to make a mezly stone he cannot lift he is Not all powerfull if he makes the stone and is unable to lift it he is not all powerful. The stone cuts at both ends

Power means strength, not ability. For the same price you should tell me that God's not omnipotent because he can't drop dead!

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 11:56 AM

Power means strength, not ability. For the same price you should tell me that God's not omnipotent because he can't drop dead!

Abilety exactly, beina unable to do something means inability see. Being unable to microwawe a burito so hot he himself couldnt eat, thats an abilety, not being able to eat the burito, inabilrty. Puf god eit all powerfull.
Yes exactly. If e cant die, he is unble to die, doesnt have tha abilety to die isnt able of doing everething.
fucking lol at that Luther quote, dude should've been burned at the stake

I always thought that "heavy stone" thing was stupid because a supernatural being like God doesn't have arms or the constraints of gravity. the Bible LITERALLY says he created the Universe with his will - I'm thinking he could easily "lift" the universe in the same way (and get super swole doing it)

strong posts dudes. theology isn't my main suit (obviously) but it's an enjoyable read.

Yeah but an all powerful god should be able to mace such conditions where he would lift the heviest stone.
Also we are made in his image, therfore he looks like a man, has hands and stuf.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 12:02 PM

Abilety exactly, beina unable to do something means inability see. Being unable to microwawe a burito so hot he himself couldnt eat, thats an abilety, not being able to eat the burito, inabilrty. Puf god eit all powerfull.
Yes exactly. If e cant die, he is unble to die, doesnt have tha abilety to die isnt able of doing everething.

Exactly. God is not able to do something which entails weakness. Nonetheless, that doesn't diminish His omnipotence, or power.

I repeat, you're attacking a straw man here. No responsible thinker agrees with the postulate "Omnipotence entails ability to do anything, even that which requires weakness".

I get the impression you're not bothering to read my posts.
Also we are made in his image, therfore he looks like a man, has hands and stuf.
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/files/2014/01/StrawMan2.jpg

Vlerchan

January 7th, 2016, 12:08 PM

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 12:11 PM

Exactly. God is not able to do something which entails weakness. Nonetheless, that doesn't diminish His omnipotence, or power.

I repeat, you're attacking a straw man here. No responsible thinker agrees with the postulate "Omnipotence entails ability to do anything, even that which requires weakness".

I get the impression you're not bothering to read my posts.

image (http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/files/2014/01/StrawMan2.jpg)

You leave the internet for 6 monts and sudenly everione is talking about scotsman and strawmans.
It is i who say bein able to do anything, means exactly tht. And im sticking with that statement like a cristian stics to their bible. Omnipotance sure, being able to do ANYTHING and i do mean anytjing. Like pull his ass up hus but etc etc. Making a all heawy stone is abilety, doesnt intale weeknes it intales strength, being unable to lift it intales weeknes :) 2 different things

Tell me are you a jew zomby worshiper or a jew?

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 12:15 PM

I genuinely feel sorry for Judean Zealot in these threads.

I'll also comment properly at se stage I'll imagine. I'm just seeking clarification as how the various theologians worked around the idea of infinite regress. I thought finite regress was fundemental to the various cosmological arguments.

I'll add though that discovering gravitational waves in 2014 seems to have broadly disproved at least the most common conception of a cyclical universe.

I'm just going to link you something reliable, (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.il/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html?m=1) because I can actually trust you to read it properly. (3) is of particular interest, but I recommend you read the whole page.

Edit: Here's Maimonides (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp112.htm) on the subject. You'll note his willingness to accept the Platonic account of an eternal substrata on which the current universe is founded. The Aristotelian account which he rejects is one that our current universe is eternal, which has already been disproved by Hubble's findings, among other things.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 12:18 PM

You leave the internet for 6 monts and sudenly everione is talking about scotsman and strawmans.
It is i who say bein able to do anything, means exactly tht. And im sticking with that statement like a cristian stics to their bible. Omnipotance sure, being able to do ANYTHING and i do mean anytjing. Like pull his ass up hus but etc etc. Making a all heawy stone is abilety, doesnt intale weeknes it intales strength, being unable to lift it intales weeknes :) 2 different things

Tell me are you a jew zomby worshiper or a jew?

A proud zombie worshipper. I also sacrifice a goat to Ba'al every full moon and eat the entrails. :)

Also, I'm done with you. I'm going to judge you favourably and attribute this thread to poor English skills, but either way, there's no point in continuing.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 12:54 PM

A proud zombie worshipper. I also sacrifice a goat to Ba'al every full moon and eat the entrails. :)

/.../

Don't forget to polish the ashra poles.

/.../

Also, I'm done with you. I'm going to judge you favourably and attribute this thread to poor English skills, but either way, there's no point in continuing.

Wheel excuse me for using my phone and making typos. Either contribute and bring my attention to them so I can correct them of shut up about them. Ill have you know in a C1 in English.

Now let us make the "dictionary fallacy": omnipotence (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/omnipotence) The quality of having unlimited or very great power:
God’s omnipotence.
Having the power to turn the earth into dust, also having the power to microwave a burrito so hot he himself could not eat.

Question. Why does an omnipresent God have to dwell in a box for the Jews to carry around?

Uniquemind

January 7th, 2016, 05:17 PM

For hecka same I'll just say this.

Just because someone technically has the ability to do something also doesn't meant their gonna do it to prove a point.

I'm not even all powerful alright, but in theory I have the power to steal, deceive, and basically do horrible stuff if I wanted too. I choose not too, because it serves no ends to me.

God is also all-knowing, so I assume he's not about to engage in such a paradox, about a stone that can't be lifted by him.

It's like saying because you have infinite of something, it means it's still wise to use that something wastefully.

I argue that if you have infinite of something, that something should always be used to great merit or worth and not waste.

tovaris

January 7th, 2016, 05:31 PM

Porpoise101

January 7th, 2016, 05:35 PM

I'll add though that discovering gravitational waves in 2014 seems to have broadly disproved at least the most common conception of a cyclical universe.
Not down and out for the count yet 😎
http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-discovery-now-officially-dead-1.16830

Uniquemind

January 7th, 2016, 06:22 PM

Whell firatly by biblical law to think of stealing is a crime yust like steling.

Secondli its not about making god do it, it is a question of weathe he could do it.
Can i jump 100m in the air? No i cnnot. Can an all powerful god do so? Yes he can

Then this entire conversation is one you'll have to have with God, not us. Good luck.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 06:35 PM

Then this entire conversation is one you'll have to have with God, not us. Good luck.

I think God would be rather amused.

Uniquemind

January 7th, 2016, 06:56 PM

I think God would be rather amused.

Well we're going off topic I think it best to start a new thread about theology's themes.

Let's get back on track for what this thread was meant for.

sqishy

January 7th, 2016, 07:29 PM

...when various rituals of the occult got called out and disproven for the stupid crap they were, God got lumped in with the concept of stupid people who don't understand science, believe religion and the concept of God.

May I point out that many occultists and people who practice magic(k) rituals, do not actually believe in an objective deity. Rather, they suspend their 'out-of-ritual'/etc viewpoints and hold the belief of a god/gods/etc as a tool for the ritual. Belief is used as a tool, not something beyond them to bow to. Also, many of these people would see ritual to be an intricate psychological sandbox (using representations and methods to make an impression on the subconscious mind) in order to bring about change in one's life, through changing oneself.

Contrary to what most 'laypeople' think, is magic(k) is used to bring about change in ourselves, not (as many naively see it as) a set of cheat codes to bring about change solely in the external world. Harry Potter can be left in the library.

With this, there is no reason to think that occult ritual and/or belief in magic makes someone not believe or trust in science. I'm not seeing a conflicting overlap between them.

I genuinely feel sorry for Judean Zealot in these threads.

I'll also comment properly at se stage I'll imagine. I'm just seeking clarification as how the various theologians worked around the idea of infinite regress. I thought finite regress was fundemental to the various cosmological arguments.

I'll add though that discovering gravitational waves in 2014 seems to have broadly disproved at least the most common conception of a cyclical universe.

I'm going to interject here to say that one view of the 'first cause' is that it is not within the line of causality that it is responsible for starting. In other words, if we see the universe's lifetime as being a line segment with a point A and B representing the start and end of it, the first cause is not point A (or B, or anything in the line). Instead, it is whatever caused the line segment to exist in the first place; its causal nature is not of the same kind as everything going in within the line.

I can extend the concept to an infinitely long line (if we view the universe as having no beginning or end (but being linear with time again)) and still say that the universe has a first cause, that being whatever caused the line to exist. Bring extra dimensions in it if you want, but I want to say I feel that many people are misinterpreting what is intended in the writings that were on the first cause / unmoved mover / etc. Even if this alternate view I am showing is wrong (which I doubt, because we're talking about interpretations and not opinions), it shows that we shouldn't assume a simplistic account of the universe with regards to cosmological/theological stuff. There are always more angles to look at things.

For me personally, the first cause/etc makes much more sense if seen as some higher-dimensional entity relative to what is is causing.

I'm also going to put out here an idea that the natural world is a subset of a supernatural one. This means that the supernatural (in whatever way you want to see it as) exists in our world as much as it does elsewhere (taking the view that there is some outside to this world, e.g. a multiverse structure), not being mutually exclusive to it. Using an example, our bodies are areas of relatively greater order in a region of lesser order, but what makes us special is that we are a region of high order that is also actively exporting excess lack of order [entropy] to conserve itself (computer motherboards, for a counterexample, are regions of high order that don't actively keep themselves as such). Putting it another way, the laws of thermodynamics apply as much to us as they do to the world around us - the world of order (the biosphere) is a subset of the world of chaos (everything abiological). Order is simply a particular kind of chaos, not something opposing it. It is an interdependent duality, not a duality where one is separate or immiscible with the other.
(hope this is relevant, I see it as so)

(I might also respond to this thread directly soon, don't worry!)

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 11:12 PM

Paraxiom

Not 'one view' of the first cause, The view of the first cause.
Uniquemind

I think phuckphace wanted a theology fest.

sqishy

January 8th, 2016, 10:59 AM

Paraxiom

Not 'one view' of the first cause, The view of the first cause.

I was being diplomatic :D (more-so light-treading)

Yes, it is originally that view.

tovaris

January 8th, 2016, 03:54 PM

Then this entire conversation is one you'll have to have with God, not us. Good luck.

That's my other proposition, pray to Jahve to prove himself before the Baal worshipers by lighting wet wood on fire.

Judean Zealot

January 8th, 2016, 03:56 PM

^^^ I am beginning to understand the Catholic Church's rationale in prohibiting translations of the Bible in anything but Latin.

tovaris

January 8th, 2016, 04:38 PM

^^^ I am beginning to understand the Catholic Church's rationale in prohibiting translations of the Bible in anything but Latin.

#quran

Vlerchan

January 8th, 2016, 07:24 PM

I'm just going to link you something reliable, because I can actually trust you to read it properly. (3) is of particular interest, but I recommend you read the whole page.
I read the entire thing. It was interesting. Thank you.

Not 'one view' of the first cause, The view of the first cause.
Would you mind explaining in what manner the first caused is deemed to be necessarily be interacting with the chain of events. I'm coming from a position of having first misunderstood the cosmological argument for existence so I've decided I might start from scratch.

I can understand the argument from contingency here without aid though I think.

... supernatural ...
Would you be able to offer a definition for supernatural?

Non-observable but reasonable?

Not down and out for the count yet 😎
http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-discovery-now-officially-dead-1.16830
I'm actually quite happy with this. I quite like cyclical universe theory.

Judean Zealot

January 9th, 2016, 12:01 AM

I read the entire thing. It was interesting. Thank you.

That blog in general is a very interesting one. I've been a fan of it well over a year now.

Would you mind explaining in what manner the first caused is deemed to be necessarily be interacting with the chain of events.

Agere sequitur esse (action follows being).

All contingencies are considered, in Aristotelian logic, as being comprised of act and potency. Act is that state in which the contingency manifests itself, whilst potency is the various ends to which it can be directed. Let's take Socrates as a sample contingency. Socrates is, in act, an organism with a skeleton, covered in skin, has a mouth etc. These are all properties of Socrates in act. In potency, Socrates can kick a football, learn Swahili, and troll Athens to death (literally). These are qualities of Socrates in potentia.

Now, all contingencies having a natural end, and with those natural ends being ascertainable by examination of said contingency's features (to give micro-examples, the mouth's end is to consume food, breath, speak etc, the reproductive system to reproduce, and so on), that potency of it's natural end is equally underpinned by the First Cause. We call that natural end Divine will, insofar as that is the end endorsed by the contingency's properties in act.

Thus the dog is underpinned by the First Cause, not only in respect to what it is, but also in respect of the preservation of it's dogness, humans, to their humanity, and the universe, to it's universalism (in respect to that last one I borrow alot from Taoism). Divine providence is merely the generation, or the predication if you will, of conditions amenable to each contingency's fulfilment of it's natural end (which we call God's will).

To summarise: The potency of any contingency is grounded in the First Cause, and as an extension of that, the conditions proper to the attainment of the world's natural end, which is what we call God's will.

-----

I'm really happy we're finally having this conversation, btw. :)

Vlerchan

January 9th, 2016, 06:51 AM

...contingencies...
The issue exists insofar as I am uncertain whether we are contingencies or not.
Bleid argued, pretty competently, here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2951975&postcount=17) the case that our existence is necessary.

What Bleid said is basically the main crux of my own position.

...universe...
I'm sceptical we can generalise the same rules and properties that a dog or man possesses to the universe - along the same lines that Hume raised.

---

In an infinite regress would it not be the case that all contingencies were contingent on a prior contingency ad infinitum. It would seem to me that - at a given moment -the potential of each object is founded in a history of biophysical phenomena. If it was a finite regress then it would be possible to bring this back to some ultimate animator but if it's an infinite regress is there a reason we'll necessarily find this point:

I realise that the argument posits that the First Cause is interacting from outside the chain and animating the entire chain. But I can explain the mouth I have with reference to evolution. It's potency can then derived from our sociobiological habitat. In that imagining I'm unsure what role the First Cause plays.

In an infinite regressions the "conditions amenable to each contingency's fulfilment of it's natural end" are derived from prior conditions and this continues ad infinitum. There of course remains a natural end for each link in the chain but this is determined with reference to our history of biophysical phenomena.

In an infinite regress is it also correct to presume a "world's natural end"? How is this being defined.

---

Odds are there's a misunderstanding here. I'll probably have an easier time if it's formalised.

I'm really happy we're finally having this conversation, btw. :)
I've actually meant to question you on it before.

Problem is that as far as my knowledge extends I'm running off forum posts and my own intuition. Makes me somewhat reluctant.

Judean Zealot

January 9th, 2016, 07:46 AM

The issue exists insofar as I am uncertain whether we are contingencies or not.
Bleid argued, pretty competently, here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2951975&postcount=17) the case that our existence is necessary.

That's a very pretty word game, but it still doesn't classify existence as necessary. Necessary existence is that which could not possibly not exist as itself, whereas the principle of explosion itself is contingent upon the dual truth value of contradictory propositions. Sans the principle, the case for our existence vanishes, ergo our existence remains contingent.

I'm sceptical we can generalise the same rules and properties that a dog or man possesses to the universe - along the same lines that Hume raised.

Expand. I am referring to the phenomenal universe, by the way.

In an infinite regress would it not be the case that all contingencies were contingent on a prior contingency ad infinitum.

Absolutely. That doesn't mean that the entire set of contingencies don't have to be grounded in a necessary existence. It's the problem of universals.

It would seem to me that - at a given moment -the potential of each object is founded in a history of biophysical phenomena. If it was a finite regress then it would be possible to bring this back to some ultimate animator but if it's an infinite regress is there a reason we'll necessarily find this point:

I realise that the argument posits that the First Cause is interacting from outside the chain and animating the entire chain. But I can explain the mouth I have with reference to evolution. It's potency can then derived from our sociobiological habitat. In that imagining I'm unsure what role the First Cause plays.

In an infinite regressions the "conditions amenable to each contingency's fulfilment of it's natural end" are derived from prior conditions and this continues ad infinitum. There of course remains a natural end for each link in the chain but this is determined with reference to our history of biophysical phenomena.

I'm not denying any of this. Nonetheless, the entire history of biophysical phenomena is itself contingent. Until we can break out of contingency there remains the question of 'why anything at all?'

As an aside, biological evolution seems to me to be the greatest strengthener of natural theology: it literally is an example of nature working towards utility - unless Darwin's finches evolved irrespective of their habitat, which is absurd.

In an infinite regress is it also correct to presume a "world's natural end"? How is this being defined.

Absolutely, just as a womb borne of infinite regress still has a natural end of 'bearing children'. The natural end for the world is that of harmony, in keeping with it's interlocking systems and forces. I fail to see how infinite regress precludes a natural end.

Vlerchan

January 9th, 2016, 10:49 AM

Necessary existence is that which could not possibly not exist as itself, whereas the principle of explosion itself is contingent upon the dual truth value of contradictory propositions. Sans the principle, the case for our existence vanishes, ergo our existence remains contingent.
Would you mind explaining why it matters that the Principal of Explosion is contingent on something. I'm also sceptical that concepts within logic can be seen as contingent.

I at least imagine them as existing a priori and that we proceed to access them.

Sans the principle, the case for our existence vanishes, ergo our existence remains contingent.
I guess the issue is in sans-ing the principal.

Expand. I am referring to the phenomenal universe, by the way.
Because certain properties - like contingency - hold for objects in the universe is no reason to presume that it also for the universe.

I'm defining the universe as the set that contains all objects.

Would you mind defining phenomenonal universe further please?

That doesn't mean that the entire set of contingencies don't have to be grounded in a necessary existence. It's the problem of universals.
Would you mind defining "necessary existence" please?

In the most descriptive definition possible - linked in with the cosmological argument and the problem of universals - would be most helpful.

I just want to make sure I have all the relevant details understood here and outlining things as if I'm 10 will suit us best in the long-run.

Until we can break out of contingency there remains the question of 'why anything at all?'
It's a product of the natural laws of our universe. These are a necessary component of the universe itself.

I fail to see how infinite regress precludes a natural end.
On second thought that was an awful simple mistake of mine. I imagined infinite regress to entail an infinite movement forward.

Judean Zealot

January 10th, 2016, 07:03 AM

Would you mind explaining why it matters that the Principal of Explosion is contingent on something. I'm also sceptical that concepts within logic can be seen as contingent.

I at least imagine them as existing a priori and that we proceed to access them.

I never thought you'd say that last sentence. :D

I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain relations or mathematical entities exist necessarily, but the Principle of Explosion does not fall into that category. The POE is essentially that, given the truth value of both a proposition and it's negation, any proposition can follow. Thus, the truth value of the above proposition (that is, of the incidence of Explosion) is necessary to actuate the POE, and yet we have not established a cause that would sufficiently allow for the truth values of the two propositions to exist.

We are trying to establish a cause for an infinite set of contingent causes that would transcend the set. POE fails to do so, as it's own truth value is contingent on particulars of the set; were the truth values of the two propositions consistent, the POE is irrelevant. It is only after we ascertain the existence of a paradox that we can assign necessity for existence. Thus the truth values of the propositions ontologically precede the necessity of existence, which in turn provides the causal basis for the truth values of the propositions. We have a causal loop here, thus making POE irrelevant to acting beyond the set of (ontologically prior) contingencies.

--------

I didn't go down this route because I didn't want to get sidetracked, but I believe at this point I must:

I went through the explanation of how POE, as presented by Bleid, would still be insufficient to generate a First Cause, because I believed that to be the most relevant to our discussion.

Nonetheless, the presumption that Bleid's presentation of the POE is valid may harm us down the road, so I want to point out the deficiencies of his presentation. Indeed, his representation of POE and it's place in logic is unsound and astoundingly exaggerated.

The POE is presented by Bleid as a law of logic which necessitates the simultaneous affirmation and negation of every possible proposition (including it's own). That is a reckless mischaracterization of the context logicians place the POE in; it is manifestly absurd. Aside from it's self defeating nature, in that it necessitates the negation of it's own soundness as well, it also entails an explicit and definite denial of the Laws of Identity, Non Contradiction, and the Excluded Middle, to be ontologically prior to it's assertion, otherwise it is but another example of putting the horse before the cart (as well as subsequently validating them, which only adds to it's incoherence).

What the POE is actually used for is as a Damocles' Sword of sorts to enable various models of Paraconsistent Logic (http://www.iep.utm.edu/para-log/#H1), which serves, not as a tool to justify dialethism, but on the contrary, as a means to save us from absurdism by way of localising the paradoxes which necessarily arise from language, and navigating them by means of shifting modalities.

I'm sure Paraxiom can explain this further and more succinctly than myself, as I imagine that a philosophy course in a modern university would place more focus on modality and analytic philosophy than does my own classical education.

Because certain properties - like contingency - hold for objects in the universe is no reason to presume that it also for the universe.

I'm defining the universe as the set that contains all objects.

Would you mind defining phenomenonal universe further please?

By phenomenal universe I mean the universe of phenomena, as opposed to (possibly) mathematical entities.

We most definitely can assert that a set of contingencies is contingent in itself. A set of contingencies can necessitate their own existence no more than a man can hold himself in the air. Of course, we can posit an external (uncaused/necessary) cause, outside of the set, which provides us a basis for existence. This is what Bleid (in the most charitable reading) attempts to do with the POE, which ultimately fails because it itself ontologically follows that which it is supposed to ground. This is also what I do with the classical First Cause.

I get the impression that you are automatically in your mind imagining a transcendence of the "universe" as a set above it's contingent components, but until you demonstrate the mechanism it is entirely unjustified.

Would you mind defining "necessary existence" please?

In the most descriptive definition possible - linked in with the cosmological argument and the problem of universals - would be most helpful.

Necessary existence is existence that absolutely must be; under no set of conditions can it not exist. This is in contrast to contingent existence, which, as the label implies is preceded ontologically by something else. Contingencies cannot exist necessarily, because if their ontological precedents wouldn't exist, neither would they.

Now, the cosmological argument argues that any contingencies must be ultimately grounded in a necessary existence, or the synonymous first cause. This is because the alternative would be the absurd assertion that a contingency can be necessarily grounded in itself, which entails that the contingency ontologically precedes itself, which is ridiculous.

It's a product of the natural laws of our universe. These are a necessary component of the universe itself.

Yet those properties are contingent on the universe itself, and as such is (again) putting the horse before the cart.

On second thought that was an awful simple mistake of mine. I imagined infinite regress to entail an infinite movement forward.

My intent in 'natural end' was not conclusion, it was function.

Phew. That was hard.

phuckphace

January 10th, 2016, 08:26 AM

after reading the last few pages of this thread I feel like John Bender in that one scene where he's ripping pages out of a book by Moliere

or maybe Eddie Haskell opening the wrong door at the Alexandria Library with a doob in his mouth (*Plato looks up from a scroll with an irritated scowl* "...can I help you?")

sqishy

January 10th, 2016, 09:07 AM

Would you be able to offer a definition for supernatural?

Non-observable but reasonable?

What do you mean by reasonable? (just wondering)

I'll define that the supernatural is that which is not explainable by current theories of nature. An example in physics would be dark matter and dark energy.

Of course, how far a theory goes to explain something adequately needs to be considered, as some would say that we understand dark energy enough as it being positive* curvature of spacetime (one view), but others say we still haven't explained it yet (e.g. "why is there positive curvature in space?").

With this definition, the supernatural is still open to some interpretation and fuzzy lines. How much is enough of an explanation?

I'm sure Paraxiom can explain this further and more succinctly than myself, as I imagine that a philosophy course in a modern university would place more focus on modality and analytic philosophy than does my own classical education.

I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't heard of the POE before, we don't have time to look at everything in analytic philosophy! :P .

The most we've been looking at modality was with the concept of essences - your classical education seems more in the know with the POE and such than I am, though I might know more about it indirectly than I think. We learn by sharing anyhow. Scourge me if you wish :D .

With that said, I'm looking into it and will give my opinions very soon (like later today or tomorrow).

*Edited this because I realised I said negative before.

Judean Zealot

January 10th, 2016, 10:52 AM

sqishy

January 11th, 2016, 06:56 AM

Judean Zealot

Looked at the POE, and I'll detail en example of what I'm seeing from it, in short steps.

1. X (a certain statement) is known to be true.

2. The statement [X or Y] (Y being another statement) must also be true, as X is true.

3. If X is to be taken as false, then Y must be taken as true, or else [X or Y] becomes false.

From that, I'm not seeing how it works. I get the whole truth value thing clearly, but I'm happy to make [X or Y] false if needed be, as it's the truth values of X and Y that determine the truth value of it, not the other way around.

Also, I'm only looking at this specifically and hope my first view is of some use in what you needed me for. I know I still have to actually respond directly to what phuckphace said in the start (can scourge me too if you wish!).

Judean Zealot

January 11th, 2016, 07:05 AM

sqishy

January 11th, 2016, 08:22 AM

No, the POE is roughly:
X is true.
~X is true.
Thus unrelated proposition Y is true.

Essentially it's a potential negation of truth value, which would confront us were we not to localise the paradox of both X and ~X being true.

If it's that, then I have come across that many times, if we suspend the principle to non-contradiction completely. I must have looked at a wrong place for the description of the POE.
So would it be fair to say that the POE happens when the POV is explicitly 'stopped'?

phuckphace

January 11th, 2016, 09:24 AM

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Judean Zealot

January 11th, 2016, 09:48 AM

If it's that, then I have come across that many times, if we suspend the principle to non-contradiction completely. I must have looked at a wrong place for the description of the POE.
So would it be fair to say that the POE happens when the POV is explicitly 'stopped'?

What do you mean by POV?

sqishy

January 11th, 2016, 06:35 PM

What do you mean by POV?

Yeah, properly scourge me now.

Somehow my brain associated 'Principle of Non-Contradiction' with POV, instead of PNC. Realised after I was out of access of internet.

Judean Zealot

January 12th, 2016, 12:53 PM

Yeah, properly scourge me now.

Somehow my brain associated 'Principle of Non-Contradiction' with POV, instead of PNC. Realised after I was out of access of internet.

In that case, yes, you're right. I'm not denying the soundness of POE, I'm just denying that Paraconsistent Logic fails to address the issue with a limited application.

Miserabilia

January 14th, 2016, 03:22 PM

I aggree euphoric atheists are a bit annoying but I was one myself (still an atheist just not as in your face about it anymore).

The thing with God is, I don't care what you beleive, I personaly think it's very very very illogical, but it's not about logic.

It's about providing people with hope, motivation, etc.

but when a theist doesn't accept this (tries to claim their faith is logical) just stop. Just admit that's not what it's about; and don't convince me to join your faith.

Judean Zealot

January 14th, 2016, 03:35 PM

but when a theist doesn't accept this (tries to claim their faith is logical) just stop. Just admit that's not what it's about; and don't convince me to join your faith.

http://shamelesspopery.com/media/2011/01/SaintThomasAquinas-450x450.jpg

http://www.verbalkwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/rambam_n.jpg

They disagree.

Miserabilia

January 14th, 2016, 03:45 PM

image (http://shamelesspopery.com/media/2011/01/SaintThomasAquinas-450x450.jpg)

image (http://www.verbalkwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/rambam_n.jpg)

They disagree.

Okay?
I know you are exactly one of the people I talked about, and I don't like you less because of it, but you have to admit faith is more about what it does to someone within than any logical basis.

Judean Zealot

January 14th, 2016, 03:50 PM

Okay?
I know you are exactly one of the people I talked about, and I don't like you less because of it, but you have to admit faith is more about what it does to someone within than any logical basis.

I just think it strange that theology is so easily written off, when it's leading proponents have written thousands and thousands of pages demonstrating the reason expressed in theology. Were modernists and empiricists to actually address those works and ideas that would be one thing, but to just handwave away a discipline you have never learnt as irrational is simple irresponsibility.

Miserabilia

January 14th, 2016, 03:55 PM

I just think it strange that theology is so easily written off, when it's leading proponents have written thousands and thousands of pages demonstrating the reason expressed in theology. Were modernists and empiricists to actually address those works and ideas that would be one thing, but to just handwave away a discipline you have never learnt as irrational is simple irresponsibility.

I don't think it's strange at all;

people who are already theists, write about their faith. Hence it is seen as faith and common knowledge is faith comes from within not from logic, I include myself in people that don't concider it seriously because of this too.

Judean Zealot

January 14th, 2016, 04:00 PM

I don't think it's strange at all;

people who are already theists, write about their faith. Hence it is seen as faith and common knowledge is faith comes from within not from logic, I include myself in people that don't concider it seriously because of this too.

Physicists already have studied physics, therefore that's what they demonstrate in their writings. That doesn't mean physics isn't demonstrable or is irrational.

I chose Maimonides and Aquinas because those two vehemently insist that faith be predicated on reason, not some crappy Protestant wishful dreaming.

Miserabilia

January 14th, 2016, 04:07 PM

Physicists already have studied physics,

Exactly. The physics became acepted as facts by them because they started out studying it. However the faithful didn't become faithful by logic and studying, atleast the very very vast majority didn't.
Just like you will not convince me to become a theist with their logical arguments, you and them probably didn't become faithful by that.
Yes, it may have strengthened your faith but it's usualy not strong enough to the point where an atheist will be tempted to throw away their previous idea of how the entire world works and what they think is logical and illogical to accept this new idea.

Judean Zealot

January 14th, 2016, 04:21 PM

Exactly. The physics became acepted as facts by them because they started out studying it. However the faithful didn't become faithful by logic and studying, atleast the very very vast majority didn't.
Just like you will not convince me to become a theist with their logical arguments, you and them probably didn't become faithful by that.
Yes, it may have strengthened your faith but it's usualy not strong enough to the point where an atheist will be tempted to throw away their previous idea of how the entire world works and what they think is logical and illogical to accept this new idea.

If the implication is that reason isn't the primary driving factor for my belief system, I should have you know that in Judaism's eyes I am an irredeemable heretic. I don't just coast about the ideas I've been spoonfed. For that matter, neither had Maimonides, and many denounced him as a heretic during his lifetime.

Tell me, have you read a single book on theology, even crappy theology like Swinburne, to justify your dismissal of it?

Miserabilia

January 14th, 2016, 04:24 PM

If the implication is that reason isn't the primary driving factor for my belief system

This is not the implication.
But please, if the sole and only reason you became a theist is logic, tell me now. I'd genuinly be impressed beacuse you'd be the first person I know.

Judean Zealot

January 14th, 2016, 04:41 PM

This is not the implication.
But please, if the sole and only reason you became a theist is logic, tell me now. I'd genuinly be impressed beacuse you'd be the first person I know.

For starters, you can read the exchange between Vlerchan and myself above. That would be step 1: become acquainted with Aquinas's Cosmological Argument. When you're done give me your thoughts and I'll be glad to direct you to the next steps.

Edit: Miserabilia, can I take your silence as an admission that you have never read any proper theological work?

phuckphace

January 21st, 2016, 01:43 PM

Judean Zealot

January 21st, 2016, 01:53 PM

got a question for the enlightened among us - what's up with these nihilists having such a burr under their saddles about racism? if there's no god and we're an accident of the universe and life has no meaning etc etc then I would think holding racist opinions is just as morally valid as anything else in your meaningless life, ~logically~

Well, for the majority it's just that they aren't very good at being consistent in their views. This is a problem caused primarily by people being more concerned about what beliefs make them feel good than what is actually true. How often do you see or hear people saying "I believe X because the alternative makes me feel small/bad etc", or stuff of that sort.

For others (and I believe Vlerchan falls under this category), nihilism is a brute fact that we must get around by artificially assigning importance to certain things, with the greatest utility in mind, as opposed to an overarching truth.

Vlerchan

January 21st, 2016, 05:51 PM

Finished exams. I can only apologise for ignoring like half the content.

Presume it conceded or tapping on too much ignorance for comfort.

I never thought you'd say that last sentence.
I began to reconsider this claim almost as soon as I made it :P.

[...] this route [...]
I'm just unable to defend the PoE at this level of sophistication. Perhaps Bleid will return at some stage but right now I'm more than willing to drop this point.

---

However I began to consider a derivative over the PoE argument. I came to it myself and I imagine it's been debated and refuted several centuries before I was born - but I thought I would run it here:

The argument presumes that nothing can come from nothing - and that something must have a first cause. Let's consider what 'nothing' means though. I am a imagining it as referring to the complete absence of being: objects: ideas: rules. It is a state of affairs with no qualities.

But if it lacks rules then that would seem to preclude the idea that nothing can come from nothing. That is - this state of nothing can't reject the idea of an original spontaneous emergence of being. To do that would be to ascribe rules to the state and that would undermine it's nothingness.

We most definitely can assert that a set of contingencies is contingent in itself. A set of contingencies can necessitate their own existence no more than a man can hold himself in the air.
This isn't demonstrable. It involves presuming that because all objects in the set hold certain qualities that the set itself must hold these qualities. Bertrand Russell argued this on the basis that one can claim that all men have mothers - but this is no basis to claim that mankind has one. However I find referencing a certain economic concept more illustrative:

The Paradox of Thrift: This refers to a situation where if all agents increase their individual saving which in turn leads to a contraction in aggregate saving. It's a situation where all the agents in a group can share a certain characteristic that the agents as a set don't share. The qualities of the set itself are interpretable - and must be interpreted - independent of the individual agents within it.

That the universe must share the same qualities as its component parts involves committing the same fallacy as would occur as arguing contrary to the above.

I get the impression that you are automatically in your mind imagining a transcendence of the "universe" as a set above it's contingent components, but until you demonstrate the mechanism it is entirely unjustified.
I see the universe as the expanse within which all phenomenon occur within. That it is expanding signifies it's independent from the phenomenon.

---

if there's no god and we're an accident of the universe and life has no meaning etc etc then I would think holding racist opinions is just as morally valid as anything else in your meaningless life, ~logically~
The understanding* I have of Nietzsche is that he feared the expansion of nihilism: the will to nothing. The idea Übermensch was one who could restore a prevailing set of values as the Christian paradigm entered a terminal decline. His aim was never that we succumbed to the vision that all moral values were equatable: that was in fact his greatest fear.

That the idea of Eternal Recurrence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietzsche) features in his work indicates that he thought that an individual level people should be capable of referencing their life's achievements to some standard.

Fundamentally it's all equatable - I might like puppies and you might like concentration camps; all the same to me though, said the teen Nihilist - but the aim is to rally against this.

---

* Qualified in that it's been a while since I read him.

For others (and I believe @Vlerchan falls under this category), nihilism is a brute fact that we must get around by artificially assigning importance to certain things, with the greatest utility in mind, as opposed to an overarching truth.
I'll stress two points here.

The first is that - anecdotally - the basic sentiment here encompasses all those with more than a primitive understanding of Nietzsche.

The second is that it's a more heterogeneous than this. I'm not a pure utilitarian.