Does incoherence/meaningless lead to strong atheism, or non-cognitivism?

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Does incoherence/meaningless lead to strong atheism, or non-cognitivism?

I hold that incoherent/meaningless only leads to non-cognitivism, which in turn leads to weak-atheism.

Once you defined something as being incoherent, unknowable, incomprehensible, etc, you can no longer speak of it, at all, and this includes saying it does or does not exist.

Our inability to evaluate whether god exists does NOT lead to the conclusion "god does not exist". It simply means we cannot evaluate whether god exists.

It is therefore a non-sequitur to say "god is meaningless/incoherent, therefore god cannot exist". 

I do think this is a pragmatic argument for saying god does not exist, but it is not a metaphysical one. This is an important distinction.

I would agree that only meaningful propositions can be shown to be true. But I also hold that only meaningful propositions can be shown to be false. To say something is false/untrue is to hold that statement IS meaningful, but factually wrong. Thus, meaningless propositions are simply meaningless, they are neither true or untrue.

Discuss.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:The thing is,

Strafio wrote:
The thing is, the whole point in what I said is that not all God concepts are supernatural, atleast not in the philosophical sense.

Topher wrote:
While a natural being is coherent, it makes no sense to call a natural being a god for the reason I outlined in my post above to Thomathy.

I read them.
Your first one said that if 'supernatural' wasn't the criterion for Godliness then absolutely anything could be God... not sure how you came to that one.

If you're looking for a simple rule or definition that covers all 'gods' then you're misunderstanding the nature of how language functions in the real world.
There's no justification for your demand for a simple rule.
Your second one said that if God wasn't supernatural then the cosmological argument didn't work.
So um... does it work when God is supernatural?
Again, you're trying to demand a simple rule/motivation for a person to 'invoke' God. Why?
Why should there be a simplistic reason?
God belief is a complex cultural phenomenon with multiple background and reasons.

 

Strafio wrote:
I take it we've all seen Bruce almighty.

Bruce Almighty displayed a coherent description of God.

Morgan Freeman certainly wasn't supernatural in the philosophical sense - he had characteristics like feelings and even a face.

Topher wrote:
He was a supernatural god in so far as what he done... mentally/acusually willing things into existence, etc.

That's not supernatural in the metaphysical sense.
Metaphysical supernaturalism doesn't allow for mentality or willing - they are natural concepts.
Not that I needed to even say that.
The film showed a coherent situation which contained a character that most people would be happy to call 'God'.
Just one example of a metaphysically natural conception of God.
Yes, his actions violated the laws of physics, but to violate the laws of physics isn't incoherent - just false.

 

 

Strafio wrote:
They get introduced to a specialist metaphysical term called 'supernatural' which bears no relation to the layman term 'supernatural' that they had been using all their lives.

Then get told that as a theist, this new concept of supernatural is what they mean by God so no matter what they personally conceptualise God to be they have to defend this one.

Stawmanning is bad enough - when they attack an effigy and call it you.

Topher wrote:
I don't think it is a straw man.

It doesn't matter who you are or what you're debating.
If a person says "That's not what I believe" then you're straw-manning them.
If you then tell them that they have to believe it, then you're wicker-manning them.
Either way, you're not debating what they believe.

(No doubt we'll now see an argument that includes the phrase "Well if they're really a Scotsman, I mean theist, then by definition they believe..." )

Topher wrote:
Most theists will believe in a god that includes supernatural 'attributes' (beyond nature) and natural attributes (it does stuff, engages with matter), which as DG highlighted would be a contradiction.

 

So the atheist is not attacking a straw man god, they are attacking the very god the theists believes in, the theists however wants it both ways, they want there god to be supernatural and natural at the same time.


If they do have a contradictory beliefs then by all means show them the contradictions.
All I ask is that you allow them to show you their contradictions in their own beliefs rather than just demanding they take the position you find easiest to knock down.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:They get

 

Strafio wrote:
They get introduced to a specialist metaphysical term called 'supernatural' which bears no relation to the layman term 'supernatural' that they had been using all their lives.
Then get told that as a theist, this new concept of supernatural is what they mean by God so no matter what they personally conceptualise God to be they have to defend this one

deludedgod wrote:
It's like Topher said. Most theists hold to the God notion just discussed, an independant cause of natural events being a conscious mind-entity, etc. those who hold to a personal God will also consider this mind-entity to be anthropomorphic and display human emotions (such as concern over what you do while naked etc. ). Additionally, most theists believe in the "supernatural" in the sense of a seperate ontological category distinct from the material universe and that God falls under such a category as a supernatural entity, a mechanic of the natural world independant of it(of course, there's also panentheism, but I would say that is completely incoherent, more so than usual theism). Unless, of course, you wish to articulate precisely what you think they think.

Maybe they do.
All I was saying was to let them define their own terms rather than dogmatically bulldoze the concepts on them that you're used to using.
I'm not saying that you do this - I was getting it mainly from Topher and Todangst at the time.

I remember being told that God was necessarily incoherent.
When I tried to use the "God of the Sims" as a counter example, showing that it could coherently describe a being with a mind who had absolute power and knowledge over our space-time cosmos, the reply was either:
1) Being told that this 'god' wasn't supernatural so therefore it couldn't be God.
I gradually came to accept this term supernatural but it was out of submission rather than rational persuasion.
That is, had I stuck to my rational guns I wouldn't have accepted it.

2) The second kind was quotes from the Bible and various theologians.
The theologians were used as if I should accept them authoritatively.
(I wasn't even a Christian, and even if I was then that doesn't mean I have to agree with every other Christian idea.)
The quotes from the Bible took a line and it was then claimed that this line was to be intepreted as a strict philosophical definition of God, even though the book is hardly written in the style of strict philosophy with carefully defined terms.
(I wasn't even a Christian, and even if I was then there's no reason why I should agree with such an interpretation of the Bible)

If I was to dig into the IG archives and show you the posts where it happened, perhaps you'd see for yourself and agree with me.
In the meantime, I probably shouldn't have started this tangent - this ranting about my introduction to IG is more than a little bit off topic!!
Sorry... Smiling


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 Strafio wrote:Your first

 

Strafio wrote:
Your first one said that if 'supernatural' wasn't the criterion for Godliness then absolutely anything could be God... not sure how you came to that one.

Errr... that's not what I said. I said if a natural being can be classified a god, then by what criteria do we say some natural beings are god, but not others?

 

Strafio wrote:
If you're looking for a simple rule or definition that covers all 'gods' then you're misunderstanding the nature of how language functions in the real world.

I'm simply looking for a criteria for how to determine natural beings who are gods, from other natural being who are not gods. You cannot say god could be a natural beings and then not add criteria for how and why this natural being is a god, until you do so you left the door open for any natural being to be a god.

 

Strafio wrote:
Your second one said that if God wasn't supernatural then the cosmological argument didn't work.
So um... does it work when God is supernatural?

No, but I understand why people posit the supernatural god: to magically explain us, the universe and existence. That of course suffers from its own problems (which are of course magically explained away) however it is understandable why it is invoked/believed. However invoking a natural god is even worse for the natural god believer: it has all the same problems, but they cannot magic them away like the supernaturalist believer can, rendering the natural god both theologically and metaphysically useless! It makes no sense to try to salvage the idea of a creator only to end of with a watered down version with all the same problems! If you're gonna go to the trouble to invoke a god just go all the way and appeal to a supernatural one.

 

Strafio wrote:
Again, you're trying to demand a simple rule/motivation for a person to 'invoke' God. Why?
Why should there be a simplistic reason?

Again, this is not what I am requesting.

 

Strafio wrote:
Metaphysical supernaturalism doesn't allow for mentality or willing - they are natural concepts

While mentality and willing are natural concepts, acusual mentality and acusual willing are not. 

 

Strafio wrote:
If a person says "That's not what I believe" then you're straw-manning them.

Not necessarily. Most theists will make a claim, but not realise the logical ramifications of the claim. If deal with the logical ramifications of THEIR claim, and they reject that conclusion, it's not my fault. They need to understand that their own claims logically lead to.

 

Strafio wrote:
If you then tell them that they have to believe it, then you're wicker-manning them.

I don't tell them that they have to believe. I tell them the logical ramifications of their own argument! If they claim is X and the conclusion is Y, then I tell them the conclusion is Y.

 

Strafio wrote:
Either way, you're not debating what they believe.

If its not what they believe then they need to actually think their arguments through!

 

Strafio wrote:
If they do have a contradictory beliefs then by all means show them the contradictions.

Right. And what do you think the response will often be? "That's not what I believe" (!!). They don't *think* their belief is contradictory, so when you point out the contradiction, they accuse you of a straw man. But it isn't a straw man at all. So hopefully you see that them shouting straw man is necessarily the case.

 

Strafio wrote:
All I ask is that you allow them to show you their contradictions in their own beliefs rather than just demanding they take the position you find easiest to knock down.

They probably don't even think there is a contradiction to begin with. Furthermore, are you actually saying I should wait for them to show me the contradiction that they probably are not even aware of?! And if they are aware of it, why are they making a knowingly contradictory argument!

 

 

Strafio wrote:
When I tried to use the "God of the Sims" as a counter example, showing that it could coherently describe a being with a mind who had absolute power and knowledge over our space-time cosmos

The response was we would simply be a part of this god-programmers universe/nature and therefore contingent on all the same things this 'god' is contingent on.

 

Strafio wrote:
2) The second kind was quotes from the Bible and various theologians.
The theologians were used as if I should accept them authoritatively.
(I wasn't even a Christian, and even if I was then that doesn't mean I have to agree with every other Christian idea.)

I think the point was to show that the arguments were not atheist arguments, but arguments from theists themselves. For example, saying something beyond nature would be incomprehensible to a natural being is not an atheist argument... it comes from the likes of St. Augustine. Saying reason is not involved with faith is not an atheist argument... it comes from the likes of Martin Luther. Both theists.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:Your first one

Strafio wrote:


Your first one said that if 'supernatural' wasn't the criterion for Godliness then absolutely anything could be God...

 

I agree with that, Strafio. Just thought it might be of interest since I am theist and I don't claim a supernatural god.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:(of course,

deludedgod wrote:

(of course, there's also panentheism, but I would say that is completely incoherent, more so than usual theism)

What about panentheism do you find completely incoherent, DG? Just curious.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What about panentheism

Quote:

What about panentheism do you find completely incoherent, DG? Just curious.

What do we mean when we say that God is the universe and more? Is God some sort of object, entity, or word which denotes the entire physical universe and then "something else"? If so, what is this "something else"? There appears to be an internal contradiction between stating that God is "behind" the physical universe in the sense that this entity is responsible for its existence and at the same time is also a part of it. The whole doctrine struck me as more New-Agey-feel-good type vagueness as opposed to a rigorous set of beliefs about the nature of reality.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: Thomathy

Topher wrote:

 

Thomathy wrote:
HA!  Don't fall into that trap.  What are the necessary conditions for something to be a god?  There are limitless definitions as far as I can tell.

By what criteria do we say a natural being is a god?

 

By what criteria do we define a natural being? How accurate is it?

 

Topher wrote:

If a natural being created us and our universe, does this mean that if we created sentient computers, of a virtual race of beings in its own virtual universe, we would also be gods?

 

Possibly.

 

 

 

Topher wrote:
 

To me it makes no sense calling a natural being a god. A god is usually invoked as an explanation, but what is this natural god being invoked to explain... us, our universe?

 

Itself.

 

Topher wrote:

If this is the case then we must ask what is responsible for this natural gods existence and universe? If this being is natural then either another god is responsible (leading to infinite regression) or this natural gods existence and universe arose through natural means (evolution), and if we accept that answer, then there is no need to posit a natural god as an explanation for us/our universe to begin with.

 

It is not known that the universe arose through natural means, that assumes more than we can say is true about time and cause, as does the cosmological argument.

 

Any more arguments against a natural God?

 


Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:What

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

What about panentheism do you find completely incoherent, DG? Just curious.

What do we mean when we say that God is the universe and more?

Oh, that...  "more" is a horribly misleading idea. By saying the universe and "more" that statement implies that dualism is a necessary aspect of panentheism when really it's probably just indicative of someone's lack of vision in describing it to you.

I'd say that by more the writer is referring to the notion that God operates within everything as a singular entity. Thus the universe functions to what end appears to be functioning locally, and to some other end globally. So then there's 'more' than the universe in the respect that there are two (at least) teleological constructs and one is transcendent of the other, where transcendent means you're inventing a scale based on your relative perception and global action supercedes local action on that scale.

So, you might agree, 'the universe and more' is a really bad way of phrasing it which leads to unnecessary non-cognitivism of the panentheistic view.

I think I answered your other questions already so I'll leave it there.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Topher

Eloise wrote:
Topher wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
HA!  Don't fall into that trap.  What are the necessary conditions for something to be a god?  There are limitless definitions as far as I can tell.

By what criteria do we say a natural being is a god?

 By what criteria do we define a natural being? How accurate is it?

 

A being that exists in the natural world, is by definition a natural being.


 

Eloise wrote:
Topher wrote:
To me it makes no sense calling a natural being a god. A god is usually invoked as an explanation, but what is this natural god being invoked to explain... us, our universe?

 Itself.

 

So you're invoking the existence of a natural god.... to explain the existence of this natural god?!


 

Eloise wrote:
Topher wrote:

If this is the case then we must ask what is responsible for this natural gods existence and universe? If this being is natural then either another god is responsible (leading to infinite regression) or this natural gods existence and universe arose through natural means (evolution), and if we accept that answer, then there is no need to posit a natural god as an explanation for us/our universe to begin with.

It is not known that the universe arose through natural means, that assumes more than we can say is true about time and cause, as does the cosmological argument.

Until we have reason to invoke anything other than natural origins/causes, we shouldn't.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Eloise wrote:By

 

Topher wrote:

A being that exists in the natural world, is by definition a natural being.


 As I said, how accurate is that? Define what you mean by "being" and "in the natural world", please. 

Topher wrote:

So you're invoking the existence of a natural god.... to explain the existence of this natural god?!


 

Yes, tongue in cheek, I am. Otherwise I wouldn't be invoking it at all, I'd be talking about something else altogether.  My reasoning really isn't as circular as you're painting it, I'm just following the flow of this discussion. You've argued that one cannot invoke a natural God and rationally explain its existence and that is my reason for invoking mine, because I can. I'm not actually trying to explain anything with it, other than my objection to your point.

Topher wrote:

Until we have reason to invoke anything other than natural origins/causes, we shouldn't.

I'm not invoking something other than natural origins and causes, I am arguing against the presupposition of their context in the definition of being, again, you are asserting a context as true when it's actually certainly debatable.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I must say most are so stuck

I must say most are so stuck in pointless god definitions, they are drowning or at best treading in dirty water.  That would include me .....

Well, here we are, trapped in the confused amber of this yet defined god of our moment wading in our past idiocy.  ((( thanks Eloise 

Get your wings. Dry out? A wise one walks above the water, but it's pouring from above! There is no escape, we are exactly god !       

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: Thomathy

Topher wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
HA!  Don't fall into that trap.  What are the necessary conditions for something to be a god?  There are limitless definitions as far as I can tell.
By what criteria do we say a natural being is a god?
I also wrote:
thomathy wrote:
Of course, if there exists something [natural] that is god-like enough to call god, soon after discovering it we would find every reason not to call it god.
My reasons for the above equate with yours.

Edit: I added in square brackets something that was implied in my original post so as to make it explicit.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:As I said, how

Eloise wrote:
As I said, how accurate is that? Define what you mean by "being" and "in the natural world", please.

Being = a living life.

In the natural world = in nature, our universe.

 

Eloise wrote:
Yes, tongue in cheek, I am. Otherwise I wouldn't be invoking it at all, I'd be talking about something else altogether.  My reasoning really isn't as circular as you're painting it, I'm just following the flow of this discussion. You've argued that one cannot invoke a natural God and rationally explain its existence and that is my reason for invoking mine, because I can. I'm not actually trying to explain anything with it, other than my objection to your point.

My point is you have no rational reason for invoking a god, natural or otherwise. Invoking it 'because you can' is not a rational justification - it's circular!

 

Eloise wrote:
I'm not invoking something other than natural origins and causes, I am arguing against the presupposition of their context in the definition of being, again, you are asserting a context as true when it's actually certainly debatable.

How do you define "natural being" then?

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Eloise wrote:As

Topher wrote:

Eloise wrote:
As I said, how accurate is that? Define what you mean by "being" and "in the natural world", please.

Being = a living life.

In the natural world = in nature, our universe.

 

Eloise wrote:
Yes, tongue in cheek, I am. Otherwise I wouldn't be invoking it at all, I'd be talking about something else altogether.  My reasoning really isn't as circular as you're painting it, I'm just following the flow of this discussion. You've argued that one cannot invoke a natural God and rationally explain its existence and that is my reason for invoking mine, because I can. I'm not actually trying to explain anything with it, other than my objection to your point.

My point is you have no rational reason for invoking a god, natural or otherwise. Invoking it 'because you can' is not a rational justification - it's circular!

 

The justification is the challenge that it cannot be done and that isn't circular.

If you recall what you said was there was no sense invoking a God if not to use it to explain something other than itself. But I disagree, God has been invoked long ago and we're past explaining things with it now, the only thing left to explain about God is God. There is either an explanation that accords with what has already been said or there isn't. That I believe there is, is a rational justification for me to invoke God again. Isn't that where you were up to in the discussion here?

 

to recap:

 

Topher: Does incoherence lead to non-cognitivism or strong atheism?

Topher and others: Supernatural leads to incoherence leads to non-cognitivism.

Strafio: What about a natural God?

Topher: That's incoherent too.

Eloise: No it isn't.

Topher: Why is it not incoherent?

Eloise: Because it is consistent with itself.

Topher: What is the reason for showing God to be consistent with itself?

Eloise: For the sake of showing it is coherent. What other reason do you need when you've argued that it isn't?

 

I'm sorry for not giving a serious answer previously because it has muddied the water between us. What I am saying now is all I was really trying to say.

 

You seem to me to be saying that I must need this natural God to explain something to even contemplate it's existence, but you're jumping the gun there, you don't know that I can't show you God just is without it filling some sort of projected void, you seem to be assuming that God can never be shown to just exist, and I am raising an objection to that assumption.

 

An atheist might say "I would probably believe in God if he just showed himself one day." and there is no why he's going to show up involved there, it's just if he shows up, if he is detectable, that's enough. God doesn't need an excuse to be shown to exist any more than you do. If I can point to Topher and say "there's Topher" and be taken seriously, why should I not be able to do the same with God?

 

And finally, I realise you were saying it would make God more Godly if I can demonstrate how he is a necessary explanation for something, but it's a bit arbitrary to declare what Godliness must necessarily entail when you haven't even seen a coherent definition of God yet, don't you think?

 

 

Topher wrote:
 

Eloise wrote:
I'm not invoking something other than natural origins and causes, I am arguing against the presupposition of their context in the definition of being, again, you are asserting a context as true when it's actually certainly debatable.

How do you define "natural being" then?

Well first, I'm not so sure that the distinction of 'being' in your definition actually exists in reality. This is not one of the usual philosophical doubts, although I've got to say that those philosophical doubts probably should have much more effect on how comfortable a philosopher is making broad assertions beyond knowledge than what's been apparent in my experience. However, my doubt is in view of science and not philosophy, as I have it there is no such thing as 'living'. Life and existence are quite synonymous, and animate life and inanimate life are as synonymous as heat and cold are - in reality they are the same thing at different rates.

So to define a natural being is to define anything with a rate, or otherwise 'degree', of animacy in the natural world, and that degree is relative to the Markov neighbourhood, or in other words, every entity moves through it's own time, and it's rate of animation or life-ness is only slow or fast relative to another entity; relative to itself, it's perfectly normal. Humans may seem to be uniquely living, uniquely sentient and uniquely conscious, but that uniqueness is an illusion of the rate at which the matter that comprises humans processes, the only thing which is unique to the human is the local rate, the processes are the same and they are always on a global scale.

So a natural being in the natural world is anything with a rate of animacy and no particular rate is qualitatively distinguishable as a contrasting entity. Nothing is dead and nothing is alive these are empty distinctions, everything is animate via the same process.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:The

Eloise wrote:
The justification is the challenge that it cannot be done

I never said it cannot be done, I said there was not rational justification for doing so.

Eloise wrote:
That I believe there is, is a rational justification for me to invoke God again.

But you have not rationally demonstrated that there is - you've merely assumed it!

You cannot just beg the question that there is a rational justification, and then used that begged question as a justification! 

Eloise wrote:
You seem to me to be saying that I must need this natural God to explain something to even contemplate it's existence,

I'm not saying this. Of course you can contemplate its existence, but there is a difference between contemplating its existence and saying that it exists. You cannot say it exists merely because you can contemplate its existence. Without a rational justification for doing so, you're not making an argument, you're begging the question.

Eloise wrote:
but you're jumping the gun there, you don't know that I can't show you God just is without it filling some sort of projected void, you seem to be assuming that God can never be shown to just exist, and I am raising an objection to that assumption.

But you've not demonstrated that it "just exists". Furthermore, why would you want to even posit a god that "just exists", and not that this god is responsible for anything? Why not just say a "blarb" exists? Blarb isn't responsible for anything, doesn't effect us, has no use relative to us, and is therefore effectively useless to us and might as well not even exist.

Eloise wrote:
And finally, I realise you were saying it would make God more Godly if I can demonstrate how he is a necessary explanation for something

Never said this... what I did say was it would be a waste of time to posit such a being, just as it would be a wast of time to posit a blarb.

Eloise wrote:
Well first, I'm not so sure that the distinction of 'being' in your definition actually exists in reality. This is not one of the usual philosophical doubts, although I've got to say that those philosophical doubts probably should have much more effect on how comfortable a philosopher is making broad assertions beyond knowledge than what's been apparent in my experience. However, my doubt is in view of science and not philosophy, as I have it there is no such thing as 'living'. Life and existence are quite synonymous, and animate life and inanimate life are as synonymous as heat and cold are - in reality they are the same thing at different rates.

This looks like a subtle fallacy of composition to me. You're essentially saying there is not much difference between life and non-life (after all, we're all the "same thing", matter), therefore life/being isn't a meaningful distinction from non-life.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Life and existence are

Quote:

Life and existence are quite synonymous, and animate life and inanimate life are as synonymous as heat and cold are - in reality they are the same thing at different rates.

I agree with Topher. Biological life is obviously comprised of inanimate objects which by themselves have no capabilities of biological life, but these inanimate objects are capable of creating molecular systems capable of generating molecules which can make more of themselves via guiding their own synthesis, which is the crux of biological life. The distinction here seems clear, what seperates a complex phenomenon like biological life from other complex non-biological phenomena is precisely that property, which has existed on Earth for over 3.8 billion years, ever since the first pre-RNA forms of templated polymerization.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Can anyone explain why so

Can anyone explain why so many people screw up the concept of life without half a regard for any philosophical validation?  Life has been defined, quite clearly, for a very long time, and it necessarily, by definition, involves a discreet, organized, metabolizing, adapting, environmentally reactive, reproducing conglomeration of matter.

Energy is not life.  Energy is used by life to sustain itself.  Energy is also used by stars to produce new elements, but stars aren't alive.

Information is not life.  Information is information.

Information transfer is not life.  It is information transfer.

Do people not realize that IF they are going to use the word "life" to describe something that violates the real definition of life, they're going to have to say what the new definition is, and give (at the very least) a valid reason for calling it life when it is clearly not the same thing?

For instance, if one day, we encounter rocks that talk, we're going to have to account for how sentience could occur in something that by all scientific accounts, ought not be sentient.  Until then, doesn't it fall on the shoulders of the person using the word "life" to explain why that word is being used?

In describing any kind of non-material or non-organic non-reproducing, non-metabolizing form of existence, and calling it life, aren't theists making the same kind of error of incoherence as when they speak of immaterial?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:Life

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Life and existence are quite synonymous, and animate life and inanimate life are as synonymous as heat and cold are - in reality they are the same thing at different rates.

I agree with Topher. Biological life is obviously comprised of inanimate objects which by themselves have no capabilities of biological life, but these inanimate objects are capable of creating molecular systems capable of generating molecules which can make more of themselves via guiding their own synthesis, which is the crux of biological life. The distinction here seems clear, what seperates a complex phenomenon like biological life from other complex non-biological phenomena is precisely that property, which has existed on Earth for over 3.8 billion years, ever since the first pre-RNA forms of templated polymerization.

 

Hi DG, You're making the same assertion here about the nature of time and causality and the biological relationship to them, yours is more subtle and implicit but it's the same.

1. By saying that inanimate objects 'by themselves' have no capabilities of biological life you tacitly imply that biological life has these capabilities 'by itself' - biological life is nowhere and in no way by itself at all, to have anything, let alone capabilities beyond that of the rest of the universe.

2. By raising the idea that abiogenesis demarcates some boundary whereupon biological life and it's cause depart from each other in time, you are asserting things we neither know about cause nor about time. We do not know where causal boundaries begin and end, and we do not know that they are in time. That is a confusion of the map with the landscape.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. By saying that

Quote:

1. By saying that inanimate objects 'by themselves' have no capabilities of biological life you tacitly imply that biological life has these capabilities 'by itself' - biological life is nowhere and in no way by itself at all, to have anything, let alone capabilities beyond that of the rest of the universe.

I should have been more clear. Atoms, obviously, are the constituents of molecules, those being the constituents of supramolecular structures and so forth. If we took a biological organism and started paring it down to get to the bare essentials of what makes biological life, we would eventually get some sort of stripped down version of primitive autocatalysis in membranous vescicles by pre-pro-ribozymal molecules that were capable of guiding their own synthesis in the water. At the bare essential and basic definition of biological life, we come back to the notion that biology is defined by that fact that whatever "biological" entity under discussion is, it will have some sort of molecular basis for its own continuity. It's hard to see how we could define "biology" any other way. If you're going to ask me at what point in the slow 600 million year process of chemical evolution predating cellular life did the transition from "non-life" to "life" occured, I would reply it was the moment when the first pro-RNA was successful in using itself as a template holding the hereditary information to propogate its continued synthesis and the homogenous catalytic properties to catalyze the chemical reaction that allows this to occur. Before that, the original pre-pro-ribozymes would have in principle been able to serve as templates for the continuity of themselves, but without the catalytic property to induce this, it wouldn't have happened. And with this event, the first pre-replicative systems would have been able to form, allowing for natural selection, and therefore, for chemical evolution to kick off.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nothing much has been

Nothing much has been explained, therefore god exists. Doesn't refusing god just mean that a definition has not yet been adequately conceived ? 

Life, matter, energy, time, etc has not been explained, yet we argue this word g-o-d, which just means WTF  ? 

I see no way yet to eliminate WTF ? (god). 

God of Abe is obviously bunk, while most the sheeple are yet uninformed. 

Isn't science the study of gawed, the awe ?

Philosophy can drive me nearly as crazy as religion ....  

I love this revealing thread .... especially with Rum ....    LOL 

    What am I missing ???  Oh, brain power !  WTF , OMG , Damn me ....  

 

 

 

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Eloise

Topher wrote:

Eloise wrote:
The justification is the challenge that it cannot be done

I never said it cannot be done, I said there was not rational justification for doing so.

That's what I meant, what you said cannot be done is rationally justifying the existence of a natural God. I defy you that it can be done, and I say you assume far too much of what that rationalisation should entail.

 

Topher wrote:

Eloise wrote:
That I believe there is, is a rational justification for me to invoke God again.

But you have not rationally demonstrated that there is - you've merely assumed it!

No, I have just not agreed with you that the only rational justification for a natural God is to explain something else. You are special pleading the criteria for demonstrating an entity exists, you are saying because it's God there's no sense in showing it exists unless you are filling a hole in knowledge *with it* that's ridiculous, not knowing that it exists is already a hole in knowledge to fill. Why must I conjure up another one for you before you'll give me time of day on this?

 

Topher wrote:

You cannot just beg the question that there is a rational justification, and then used that begged question as a justification! 

This is what I am arguing Topher, I am rebutting your assertion that the question must be begged to be addressed. You seem to really wish it were necessary to beg the question and are attempting to argue that I have begged the question merely because you told me I'd be begging it before I responded.

I have said, God is natural and I will show you how this is coherent. But I haven't reached this conclusion by assuming a natural God, you have it backwards. I have asserted to you that God is natural not begged that God exists merely in order to argue how. It was your original post that posited that it is necessary for God to be invoked before being described and hopefully for the last time I am telling you that is not! But since it's already been invoked by this conversation allow me to describe it to you.

Frankly I think you are concentrating so heavily on this section of the discussion that you are not seeing how it connects to the rest of what I am saying, "itself" was not intended to be a stand alone point.

 

Topher wrote:

Eloise wrote:
You seem to me to be saying that I must need this natural God to explain something to even contemplate it's existence,

I'm not saying this. Of course you can contemplate its existence, but there is a difference between contemplating its existence and saying that it exists. You cannot say it exists merely because you can contemplate its existence. Without a rational justification for doing so, you're not making an argument, you're begging the question.

I hope you will see that my debate with you is what constitutes a rational justification for saying it exists. How is "it exists" not a rational justification for saying so?

 

Topher wrote:

Eloise wrote:
but you're jumping the gun there, you don't know that I can't show you God just is without it filling some sort of projected void, you seem to be assuming that God can never be shown to just exist, and I am raising an objection to that assumption.

But you've not demonstrated that it "just exists".

That's not what this section is about. In this part of the conversation I am only arguing that something existing is a rational justification for showing that it exists - and there shouldn't need to be more justification than that simply because the subject is God.

 

Topher wrote:

Furthermore, why would you want to even posit a god that "just exists", and not that this god is responsible for anything? Why not just say a "blarb" exists? Blarb isn't responsible for anything, doesn't effect us, has no use relative to us, and is therefore effectively useless to us and might as well not even exist.

This isn't really a "furthermore", this is the original point as far as I can see. Now I didn't say that God wasn't responsible for anything, I said that I don't need that as a justification for asserting it's existence. Your assumption that I do need it comes probably from the notion that there are no existing explanations for the phenomenal universe which imply anything like God, and I disagree with that. There are.

Topher wrote:

Eloise wrote:
And finally, I realise you were saying it would make God more Godly if I can demonstrate how he is a necessary explanation for something

Never said this... what I did say was it would be a waste of time to posit such a being, just as it would be a wast of time to posit a blarb.

Well I can only say I wish you'd be more inclined to reserve your judgement there until you've heard the argument, but what can I do? Sticking out tongue

Quote:

This looks like a subtle fallacy of composition to me. You're essentially saying there is not much difference between life and non-life (after all, we're all the "same thing", matter), therefore life/being isn't a meaningful distinction from non-life.

Okay, I did not imply the same thing ie:matter , what I said was the same thing ie: processes given to distinction only by the universal properties of cause and time and we should be considering the nature of both of those with much more care than so far we have done.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you're going to ask

Quote:
If you're going to ask me at what point in the slow 600 million year process of chemical evolution predating cellular life did the transition from "non-life" to "life" occured, I would reply it was the moment when the first pro-RNA was successful in using itself as a template holding the hereditary information to propogate its continued synthesis and the homogenous catalytic properties to catalyze the chemical reaction that allows this to occur.

While we're on the subject, DG, I have a question for you.  Do you think it's an error to ask the exact moment that there was life?  I don't know much at all about the current theories of abiogenesis.  Is it likely that the concept of "life" is similar to the concept of species, in the sense that (except in bacteria, perhaps) one member of a species does not give birth to a member of a new species, but rather, there is a series of events, none of which in themselves constitutes a singular speciation moment, but when observed in conglomeration later, merits division?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Is it likely that the

Quote:

Is it likely that the concept of "life" is similar to the concept of species

I don't think so, because "species" is a much more hazy concept than that of life. Obviously, I wasn't serious in suggesting there was an exact "moment" to the transition from non-life to life. Instead, it should be viewed as a primordial phase transition where the origination of self-replicative systems allowed for the accumulation of pre-biological polymers and hence for natural selection to act. However, if we are discussing the matter in strictly technical terms, I stand by the statement that the very first pre-RNA molecule with the capacity to catalyze its own partial templated polymerization does indeed qualify as the first real life form on this planet. Or, to extend your anology, consider a population which undergoes geographical seperation to form a clade. Although speciation is gradual, it follows that there must have been one precise moment in time where one single organism of population X was just different enough from one member of population Y that the two could not form a viable offspring, and that, strictly speaking, is the moment of speciation.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
PS: This just reminded me of

PS: This just reminded me of something I wrote down in another thread which I think should be on a T shirt:

Creationist view of abiogenesis:

Simple molecules------------------>Bacteria

Real view of abiogenesis:

Simple molecules--->Adsorption surface, piezoelectric properties exhibited by crystalline surfaces forms the basis of catalysis---->Simple organic pro-polymers like PNA---->Pre-RNA world---->The formation of pre-ribozymes allows for first replicative systems----->Outphasing of pre-RNA by RNA---->Autocatalysis via ribozymal RNA templates----->Natural selection of ribozymes for self-replicative catalytic properties---->RNA world---->Formation of vesicles from phospholipids thermodynamically faborable in the water---->Segregation of ribozymes allows for mutual cooperation and selection----->Formation of first biological replicative system from the duplication of RNA----->Outphasing of RNA by DNA----->Formation of dsDNA templated polymerization-------->Cooperation of DNA as templated polymer of replicative heridary information and RNA ribozymes as the catalytic molecules of pre-cellular life in membranous vesicles---->Formation of the first polypeptides by RNA ribozymes with peptidyl transferase properties (this gives the ribozyme a selective advantage)----->Formation of active sites at pre-polypeptides leads to the outphasing of RNA as the central catalytic molecule of pre-cellular life----->Ribozymes are retained in certain necessary functions like pre-ribosomal translation---->Ability of ribozymes to hold polypeptides allows for development of tRNA---->Mutual cooperation of tRNA and ribozymes allows for the creation of an mRNA based translation system----->This gives rise to the first vesicular membranes holding cooperative systems which resemble the modern system of transcription and translation, forming the precursors of bacterial organisms----->Natural selection of the replicative hereditary molecules in these pre-bacterial organisms allows for more complex protein-based functions such as pumps, regulated ion transport etc.----->Formation of the first bacteria

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I like your explanation of

I like your explanation of abiogenesis/speciation, and I love your idea for a tshirt.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Discovery, as there are no

Discovery, as there are no secrets, but an eternity of questions.

   What do the aliens think ? !!! Umm , how many are there, and how many bangs?

  I give up , god rules !  


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:1. By

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

1. By saying that inanimate objects 'by themselves' have no capabilities of biological life you tacitly imply that biological life has these capabilities 'by itself' - biological life is nowhere and in no way by itself at all, to have anything, let alone capabilities beyond that of the rest of the universe.

I should have been more clear. Atoms, obviously, are the constituents of molecules, those being the constituents of supramolecular structures and so forth. If we took a biological organism and started paring it down to get to the bare essentials of what makes biological life, we would eventually get some sort of stripped down version of primitive autocatalysis in membranous vescicles by pre-pro-ribozymal molecules that were capable of guiding their own synthesis in the water. At the bare essential and basic definition of biological life, we come back to the notion that biology is defined by that fact that whatever "biological" entity under discussion is, it will have some sort of molecular basis for its own continuity. It's hard to see how we could define "biology" any other way.

There is no need to define biology another way, the need is to recognise the context that one phrases the definition in. I'm not saying this isn't done by biologists everywhere, no disrespect intended, of course, any scientist worth his salt makes the effort to reduce the assumptions of the model and I have no doubt you are worth your salt, DG. What I am saying is that it's not done to the satisfaction of what we know whenever arbitrary demarcation of relationships in time or causality are asserted as fact. More than anything this is habit rather than explicit error. I mean, I am quite convinced that "I" is a nonsense term and pure superstition, but it's a communicative habit here and thus far more convenient to employ than any mode that is out of touch with the present human agreement regardless of how more accurate it might be.

 

Now in the definition you have stated: whatever "biological" entity under discussion is, it will have some sort of molecular basis for its own continuity: doesn't need much changing. except for 'basis' I would say it's close to perfect. Basis is an inappropriate word because any such thing is arbitrary and asserted for the sake of the model. This is a convenience arbitrated to serve limits of human capacity for objective thought, limits nature does not share, and that human sentience might not be purely restricted to.

 

DeludedGod wrote:
 

If you're going to ask me at what point in the slow 600 million year process of chemical evolution predating cellular life did the transition from "non-life" to "life" occured, I would reply it was the moment when the first pro-RNA was successful in using itself as a template holding the hereditary information to propogate its continued synthesis and the homogenous catalytic properties to catalyze the chemical reaction that allows this to occur. Before that, the original pre-pro-ribozymes would have in principle been able to serve as templates for the continuity of themselves, but without the catalytic property to induce this, it wouldn't have happened. And with this event, the first pre-replicative systems would have been able to form, allowing for natural selection, and therefore, for chemical evolution to kick off.

 

The problem with this is it only makes sense if '600 million years past' is anything more than a mythological label invented to denote something we did not yet understand. Is it?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Religion? , fuck no ....

Religion? , fuck no .... God? , no choice is there !  Go Science ....  what's god ?


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 Eloise wrote:That's what I

 

Eloise wrote:
That's what I meant, what you said cannot be done is rationally justifying the existence of a natural God.

Well I personally don't believe it can be done (in so far as I don't believe we can rationally justify anything outside of our closed system/universe), but I'm more than willing to be refuted should a rational explanation be given.

 

Eloise wrote:
No, I have just not agreed with you that the only rational justification for a natural God is to explain something else.

 

I never said that this natural god explaining something is a rational justification - I said it wouldn't make it a complete waste of time to posit such a being. I don't know what the rational justification for positing this being because I'm yet to hear such an argument.

 

Eloise wrote:
How is "it exists" not a rational justification for saying so?

Because you essentially saying "it exists, therefore, it exists". This is circular! You've not actually given a any justification for why this being exists? You can't simply assert that it exist.

 

Eloise wrote:
I am only arguing that something existing is a rational justification for showing that it exists

Well of course it's a tautology to say "if god exists, then god exists", however it has not been established that this thing exists to begin with, that's the point!

 

Eloise wrote:
Now I didn't say that God wasn't responsible for anything, I said that I don't need that as a justification for asserting it's existence.

I never said this god being responsible for something would be the justification, I said it wouldn't make the idea completely useless.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Do people

Hambydammit wrote:

Do people not realize that IF they are going to use the word "life" to describe something that violates the real definition of life, they're going to have to say what the new definition is, and give (at the very least) a valid reason for calling it life when it is clearly not the same thing?

No problem Hamby. The 'real' definition of life depends strictly on two things, causality as a force exerted between entities, and time as a nondescript void within which this interaction occurs. Neither of those things are actually true so the definition fails.

Thus that which we call life needs be redefined to accord with the reality that cause is an exchange, an information transaction between entities and time is a relic of the exchange given by the quantity of information over a certain causal axis.

What we call life has a different rate of exchange but no qualitative difference in terms of it's exchange. There is no point where cause actually becomes a force exerted by one entity on another. You should be able to deduce what I was going to say next, and probably realise that I've said more than I should have done. If you can do the math I've given you the jump on me... I stop here.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There is no need to

Quote:

There is no need to define biology another way, the need is to recognise the context that one phrases the definition in. I'm not saying this isn't done by biologists everywhere, no disrespect intended, of course, any scientist worth his salt makes the effort to reduce the assumptions of the model and I have no doubt you are worth your salt, DG. What I am saying is that it's not done to the satisfaction of what we know whenever arbitrary demarcation of relationships in time or causality are asserted as fact. More than anything this is habit rather than explicit error. I mean, I am quite convinced that "I" is a nonsense term and pure superstition, but it's a communicative habit here and thus far more convenient to employ than any mode that is out of touch with the present human agreement regardless of how more accurate it might be.

Ah. I didn't realize we were talking about the problem of identity. In that case, I freely admit that the whole concept of distinct "objects" in the universe is arbitrary and there is no such thing as particular personal identity of any one "object" removed from the context of the rest of the physical universe that object inhabits. As such, I would be the first to freely confess that when I point to this thing on my "desk" that I designate a "book" I am making what is ultimately a meaningless demarcation, because this supposed object is constantly changing. The question "Is that book at t1 the same book as at t2?" is a meaningless question because what it requires us to make a meaningless and arbitrary designation of what the book is. We might consider concepts like "emergent identity" where objects emerge as distinguishable things when examined in a large enough scope, but that merely begs the question since we are making the same arbitrary demarcation of where we should start looking at it.

Some people take this concept and make vague gestures towards notions like "we are all one" etc. (cue "circle of life" song). What is my consideration of such a statement. The answer is: "Stupid hippy crap". The observation made about identity is a very simple philosophical observation, which can no more be used to justify meaningless statements than quantum mechanics can be used to justify telepathy.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yeah.. What DG said.Frankly,

Yeah.. What DG said.

Frankly, if you are going to invoke that um... what was that... defense of... um... something...  (Really... I can't figure out what you're trying to prove) then we might as well stop talking.  If, however, we're going to agree on any kind of convention by which we can communicate with each other, then the ontological misuse of the word "life" requires a defense.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"Circular" - God doesn't

"Circular" - God doesn't exist because no complete definition of god exists, but on the other hand, what isn't god ? Geezzz , now what to do with the G-O-D thing ?  

      

    

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Yeah..

Hambydammit wrote:

Yeah.. What DG said.

Frankly, if you are going to invoke that um... what was that... defense of... um... something...  (Really... I can't figure out what you're trying to prove) then we might as well stop talking. 

Problem of Personal Identity. But I'm really not just invoking it, I am saying no less than that it's completely soluble. One of the main reasons it isn't already solved is that one can't calculate the integral of the momentum operator. x goes to infinity because there are too many interactions. This of course doesn't mean that x stops being interactions and becomes 'essential parts' at any value, or that there is any point discernable at which they suddenly diverge into wholly independent systems, ideally for classical convention that would be the case, but those are high hopes. Assuming that the operator is square-integrable we can let it go to zero and leave ourselves with a 'physically real' solution in classical terms (ie finding a particle in a position). But there, 'physically real' is just a convention which we haven't quite gotten the hang of comprehending the universe without.

 

Hamby wrote:

If, however, we're going to agree on any kind of convention by which we can communicate with each other, then the ontological misuse of the word "life" requires a defense.

Seriously Hamby, I gave a defense. But let's face it, you're right that meaningful communication is built around those conventional terms and I'd be asking a lot of you to just drop them because of such and such that I know, when I know it well enough and still employ those terms liberally in conversation. At this point I would just debate which is the ontological 'misuse' really? Which ontology is true, the one where we assume that a wavefunction stops existing at some point, contrary to what we know about wavefunctions, or the one where we allow a wavefunction to act like a wavefunction and accept that our arbitrary concepts of 'physically real and meaningful' are just plain bogus.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:One of the main

Quote:

One of the main reasons it isn't already solved is that one can't calculate the integral of the momentum operator. x goes to infinity because there are too many interactions. This of course doesn't mean that x stops being interactions and becomes 'essential parts' at any value, or that there is any point discernable at which they suddenly diverge into wholly independent systems, ideally for classical convention that would be the case, but those are high hopes. Assuming that the operator is square-integrable we can let it go to zero and leave ourselves with a 'physically real' solution in classical terms (ie finding a particle in a position). But there, 'physically real' is just a convention which we haven't quite gotten the hang of comprehending the universe without.

Fair enough.

(For those who had no idea what was just said, the momentum operator is usually given as (del)(h-bar/i). That probably didn't help at all in terms of explaining it, but this subject isn't exactly transparent).

EDIT:

How did we end up talking about this?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I am in love with a

I am in love with a wavefunction, we are one   , we are hippie dippie, who are you ! (?)

                     func a delic      

                              


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"How did we end up talking

"How did we end up talking about this?"  ~ DG 

     Because we are stardust !  .....    


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:At this point I would

Quote:
At this point I would just debate which is the ontological 'misuse' really?

Misuse, to me, would be invoking (or threatening to invoke) a principle that is virtually irrelevant to a concept when the argument within a functional and valid system is to your disadvantage.

Yes, I know that you can demonstrate that identity is sort of nonsense, and I know that when we reduce some of our perceptions through the filter of math, we come out with serious problems.  However, saying (or even implying) that a perfectly valid argument is invalid (or potentially invalid) because of the existence of an erudite and obscure mathematical perspective that casts time in a different light, to me anyway, reeks of a really smart sounding red herring, and a false dichotomy to boot.

As DG has implied, if not directly said, the point of view which admits the ultimate incoherence of identity is not incompatible with the continued use of identity.  (Just to prove the point, I dare you to spend one day without making use of a single identity.  Duh...)  Identity does exist, and the ultimate incoherence of identity does exist.  It is not a violation of the law of identity.  It is the use of two systems to get two equally true results, combined with the inability of humans to express or directly perceive the reality of one of them.

Quote:
Which ontology is true, the one where we assume that a wavefunction stops existing at some point, contrary to what we know about wavefunctions, or the one where we allow a wavefunction to act like a wavefunction and accept that our arbitrary concepts of 'physically real and meaningful' are just plain bogus.

See what I mean?  You make things into a dichotomy when they're not.  This has been the pattern of your arguments since you started arguing here.

Atheist:  Rock solid argument

Eloise: {{Lots of complicated math}}

Atheist: So?

Eloise: Nothing is what you think it is

Atheist: That's a philosophical error and a false dichotomy.  You don't just get to arbitrarily invoke whatever perspective you want.  You have to answer within the system in which the argument is being waged.

Eloise: {{Lots of complicated math}}

Atheist:  By the way, what was the question?

Frankly, if you weren't a mathematician, I'd think you'd make a good postmodern philosopher.  I'm not sure if I mean that as a compliment.  I don't think so.  In any case, I forgot the question, so I'm bowing out.  You and DG can figure out if I have identity.  In the meantime, I'm getting some lunch.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Atheist:  Rock solid

Quote:

Atheist:  Rock solid argument

Eloise: {{Lots of complicated math}}

Atheist: So?

Eloise: Nothing is what you think it is

Atheist: That's a philosophical error and a false dichotomy.  You don't just get to arbitrarily invoke whatever perspective you want.  You have to answer within the system in which the argument is being waged.

Eloise: {{Lots of complicated math}}

Atheist:  By the way, what was the question?

Personal opinion:

This is why God has been stuck in QM in modern times. Quantum physics is, right now, the least accessible of sciences. There is no 'laymans guide to QM'; it's a field reserved for those with real expertise (not maliciously in any way, of course - it's simply the nature of such a complex field). So, in this space, theists find themselves psuedo-untouchable to the standard philosophical arguments. If someone argues, they just throw some QM equations out there that very few people could interpret and call it a day.

Consider, Eloise, the exchange we just recently had. Why did I get stuck? I'm a layman; I'm not retarded. Why couldn't you explain your conceptualization in an abstraction that I would understand? Why can't it be boiled down into it's components that have application, and then be distributed to a wider audience?

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
In all fairness, Kevin, I

In all fairness, Kevin, I think the discussion DG and Eloise (and me, peripherally) are having is following a slightly different track than the one you're describing.  I don't think Eloise is trying to out-techno-jargon us.  I think she's inadvertently making a number of mistakes, and believes her position to be accurate.  In all fairness, I am reasonably sure that her understanding of QM is solid, and what she's saying about it is probably true.  The problem is creating a false dichotomy/category error/error of composition by invoking a QM principle in an argument in which it doesn't belong.

DG and I are both perfectly willing to concede (if I may speak for DG) that from a certain perspective, the concepts of cause/effect and identity become really blurry, to the point where they become problematic at a fundamental level.  However, brains are not fundamental particles, nor is language, nor is the perceptual reality we live in.  Applying a principle of abstract reductionist math to arguments about these constructs is effectively useless.  If we insist on treating identity as meaningless, then all we can do is stare at each other and wipe the occasional drool off our chins.  If we want to talk about reality in any meaningful way, we have to talk about it within the applicable system... namely, the one in which identity is a functional and axiomatic reality.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I dare you

Hambydammit wrote:

I dare you to spend one day without making use of a single identity.  Duh...) 

Okay, I believe it's entirely possible to have meaningful dialogue that way and I'll take you up on that, only not today because I'm using identities already in this conversation. (Thought about launching straight into it but reconsidered that steering us off without warning and then refusing to speak your language for the rest of the day would just result in losing your interest quickly and I didn't want that.)

 

HambyDammit wrote:

Identity does exist, and the ultimate incoherence of identity does exist.  It is not a violation of the law of identity.  It is the use of two systems to get two equally true results, combined with the inability of humans to express or directly perceive the reality of one of them.

I agree that the incoherence of identity isn't really a violation of the law of identity, the law doesn't get violated in it's system. I'm only saying that one can violate the law and still be talking about reality in another coherent system and if we only view that as a big inconvenience for philosophy in order to reject it we might be ripping ourselves off a bit.

 

HambyDammit wrote:

Quote:
Which ontology is true, the one where we assume that a wavefunction stops existing at some point, contrary to what we know about wavefunctions, or the one where we allow a wavefunction to act like a wavefunction and accept that our arbitrary concepts of 'physically real and meaningful' are just plain bogus.

See what I mean?  You make things into a dichotomy when they're not. 

concede. It's not a dichotomy. However, *I* didn't make it that way. This is drawn up generally as a dichotomy because of those infinities of interaction which land us with no sensible way to gather data on the in between levels. If we could get that data and study it we could use it to draw a continuous ontology between the two, because, so far, no way around the infinities has lead to a complete solution, we're left with this dilemma of choosing a side.

 

 

HambyDammit wrote:

Atheist: That's a philosophical error and a false dichotomy.  You don't just get to arbitrarily invoke whatever perspective you want.  You have to answer within the system in which the argument is being waged.

Why don't I? The argument is being waged in a system which is no less arbitrary in terms of the subject. I mean, if we were talking about Sunday brunch, OK, let's not invoke a quantum universe to decide what we're eating but fair go, Hamby, this is a discussion about the origins and nature of the universe!

 

HambyDammit wrote:

Frankly, if you weren't a mathematician, I'd think you'd make a good postmodern philosopher.  I'm not sure if I mean that as a compliment.  I don't think so.  In any case, I forgot the question, so I'm bowing out.  You and DG can figure out if I have identity.  In the meantime, I'm getting some lunch.

It's a compliment any way you intend it, that was kind, hope you enjoyed your lunch.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Consider, Eloise, the exchange we just recently had. Why did I get stuck? I'm a layman; I'm not retarded. Why couldn't you explain your conceptualization in an abstraction that I would understand?

I probably could do, Kevin. There are just a few obstacles to that. First I have to ascertain to my mind, what kind of an abstraction would work for you to gain your understanding. Second, and this is the big one, I'd have to have already garnered enough trust and respect from you that you would take my abstraction as a representation of something real and not just a lot of logical fallacies that I decided to pull out of my arse for you.

HambyDammit wrote:

Why can't it be boiled down into it's components that have application, and then be distributed to a wider audience?

 

It's not that it can't, really. It's more like as I said to Hamby, the two ontologies are so distinct from each other that all we can do is choose a side. Most people stick with the side that is familiar to them, even when they've heard all the argument against doing so. I suppose because it just seems too hard to change and the gap becomes a part-way reasonable excuse for not changing.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:One

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

One of the main reasons it isn't already solved is that one can't calculate the integral of the momentum operator. x goes to infinity because there are too many interactions. This of course doesn't mean that x stops being interactions and becomes 'essential parts' at any value, or that there is any point discernable at which they suddenly diverge into wholly independent systems, ideally for classical convention that would be the case, but those are high hopes. Assuming that the operator is square-integrable we can let it go to zero and leave ourselves with a 'physically real' solution in classical terms (ie finding a particle in a position). But there, 'physically real' is just a convention which we haven't quite gotten the hang of comprehending the universe without.

Fair enough.

(For those who had no idea what was just said, the momentum operator is usually given as (del)(h-bar/i). That probably didn't help at all in terms of explaining it, but this subject isn't exactly transparent).

EDIT:

How did we end up talking about this?

It's my fault, I've kind of hijacked Tophers topic, Sorry Topher.

To help with the explanation, the momentum operator is one way to represent the wave in wave- particle duality, to get the position for a quantum bit you flip it and vice versa. But once the numbers of quantum bits gets even a little bit large basically you run out of space for the results. So we have the collapse postulate which says, don't deal with the infinities, heuristically suppose that at some point in there the wave flat-lines because if it didn't then the world wouldn't look like it does from up here in the macroscopic realm.

I assumed, I hope correctly, that Hamby knows how to integrate a function, yes? and the momentum operator I should have mentioned as DG did is just p=angular-momentum(h-bar).direction(i) which represents the base rate of interaction potential and the integral p.dx is just p.x, you simply throw the number of interactions into the mix and calculate.

But anyhow, it's not difficult math really but maybe I was, as DG said, not transparent enough in what I said.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

"Circular" - God doesn't exist because no complete definition of god exists, but on the other hand, what isn't god ? Geezzz , now what to do with the G-O-D thing ?  

          

Correction.  It's not that there are incomplete defitions, it's that there are no coherent definitions and none  can possibly exist as long as the term 'supernatural' is used, ergo the term is incoherent.

 

I'd also like to add that you kinda, sorta, oughta know precisely what you're supposedly willing to live for and die for.... so the matter of defining this 'god' is of some importance, wouldn't you say?

 

If you examine what it is that you think you believe in, you might find a more rational reason for your belief.... as it's been said:  Nietzche said "God is dead", Freud said "God is Dad"    knowing your definition helps uncover your motives for your belief....

 

Philosophers have philosophical gods, scientists have Aristotelean Prime Movers, people with abusive, angry dads have abusive angry gods (John Calvin)....

know what your 'god' is and know yourself and your motives.....  whoever said 'god is inside you' was making an unconscious concession....

 

OH, and hi Kevin!

 

- Dr. Todangst.

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:- Dr.

todangst wrote:
- Dr. Todangst.

 

 

congratulations

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Dr. Todangst, and so I

Yeah Dr. Todangst, and so I have continued with my present pen name. How will this be interpreted? , was a big reason I went with it.

We are equal

God is what we each envision

All is God

God is irrelevant  

God is awesome

God is stupid

God is funny

God sucks

God is me and You !

    Thanks for this Doc

http://www.xanga.com/todangst

http://www.candleinthedark.com/news.html

   

 

 

 

 

  


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:todangst wrote:-

aiia wrote:

todangst wrote:
- Dr. Todangst.

 

 

congratulations

 


Thanks. I knew some people would understand what I meant....

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Yeah

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Yeah Dr. Todangst, and so I have continued with my present pen name. How will this be interpreted? , was a big reason I went with it.

We are equal

God is what we each envision

All is God

God is irrelevant  

God is awesome

God is stupid

God is funny

God sucks

God is me and You !


I agree with the last statement, but only in an ironic sense...

You are welcome. Wiki has made my sites (which I created back in the 90s) obsolete... I never used the xanga site, surprised anyone even found it....

 

Take care...

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:todangst wrote:-

aiia wrote:

todangst wrote:
- Dr. Todangst.

 

congratulations

Ditto.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:aiia

HisWillness wrote:

aiia wrote:

todangst wrote:
- Dr. Todangst.

 

congratulations

Ditto.

Thirded