Derivative natural rights theory

Unrepentant_Elitist
Science FreakGold Member
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Derivative natural rights theory

 Having just re-read John Adams' Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law No. I, a problematic aspect returned to the forefront: Adams' well-reasoned thought proceeds from an assertion that individuals possess "natural rights" because of the will of a creator. As an atheist, I obviously find this to be overly anthropic/teleological. My question is: Can the concept of natural rights be treated in an axiomatic manner (necessarily immune from foundational challenge), arguing "divine will" as a non-intrinsic property?


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
hi V,//Why we exist is

hi V,

//Why we exist is irrelevant to morality.//    Why?...........................You know the funny thing is that so many of these posts said that we use morality so we can exist.

// Worldviews are irrelevant//     Do you really believe that?  Is that your worldview?

//"Why" literally is incoherent.//    No,  it's understood inately.  It is the request for the transfer of knowledge.

//because there is no why.// Why?

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Why? Because

wakawaka wrote:
Why?

Because there is no why.

wakawaka wrote:
.You know the funny thing is that so many of these posts said that we use morality so we can exist.

So? Using morality to be capable of forming societies has nothing to do with a why, and everything to do with how.

wakawaka wrote:
Do you really believe that?  Is that your worldview?

I don't have a 'worldview'. I don't even know what that means. It's just another term theists use to describe things that don't exist as far as I can tell.

wakawaka wrote:
No,  it's understood inately.

No it isn't, it's incoherent. If it were innate then every human would agree on why. That not everyone agrees is indisputable proof that it is not innate.

wakawaka wrote:
It is the request for the transfer of knowledge

What are you talking about?

wakawaka wrote:
Why?

Why not?

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:hi V,//Why we

wakawaka wrote:

hi V,

//Why we exist is irrelevant to morality.//    Why?...........................You know the funny thing is that so many of these posts said that we use morality so we can exist.

// Worldviews are irrelevant//     Do you really believe that?  Is that your worldview?

//"Why" literally is incoherent.//    No,  it's understood inately.  It is the request for the transfer of knowledge.

//because there is no why.// Why?

 

What? Are you 5 years old for pity's sake? You certainly sound like one - why, mommy, why? Temper tantrum next?

We use morality so we can exist. Yes. We have explained and explained to you how the process works. BUT why we exist is irrelevant to our existence and to our morality. We make up cute stories to comfort ourselves in the dark. The reality is we exist because our parents had sex on a night mom was fertile. Period. Why they had sex on that particular night is that one or both of them were horny. Crude, but true. I'm sure you can come back and ask me why "you" were the result and not another Mahatmas Ghandi or Ted Bundy. Random and complex interactions both social and personal and genetic make each of us unique. NOT nature OR nurture, BUT nature AND nurture.

Worldviews are only relevant to the person who holds that worldview. They are irrelevant to anyone else or to any why.

"Why" can be useful if you are attempting to formulate a hypothesis about how a particular process works. A process - like why does the operating system fail? Why does steam form when you heat water? Processes, reality, how things work. Why is totally unimportant when talking about living, morality, logic, etc. Why is only useful if you use your personal answer for getting out of bed in the morning and getting on with life. It is important and relevant only to you. Everyone - e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e - has their own personal why for doing so.

Your whys and your answers are as irrelevant to me as mine are to you. As long as we don't violate each others personal space, we don't care what each others morals may be.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
>You have just stared straight into the literal void, Oh Yeah!!

cj wrote:

wakawaka wrote:

hi V,

//Why we exist is irrelevant to morality.//    Why?...........................You know the funny thing is that so many of these posts said that we use morality so we can exist.

// Worldviews are irrelevant//     Do you really believe that?  Is that your worldview?

//"Why" literally is incoherent.//    No,  it's understood inately.  It is the request for the transfer of knowledge.

//because there is no why.// Why?

 

[color=gold]What? Are you 5 years old for pity's sake? You certainly sound like one - why, mommy, why?

 


   All I can say is . . . SEE :: Image

 


re  ::  I couldn't condone the tactics but can understand the sentiment:

  Hi Cj :

   You have just stared straight into the literal void, and didnt even flinch. Bravo, My darling, Bravo (clap, clap, clap).   Astronaut core, f***, Yeah!

  This intrepid visitor, apparently, HAS some deep and real problems with comprehending anything 'outside' of their religious framework.

   I was reading, a little harsh (tongue-en-cheek), about people fantasizing wanting take these people and turn them over to an fbi type integration room  for 72 hours. With the sleep deprivation (SD) the bright lights the badgering, the full works. UNTIL they confess, they many no someone personally who doesnt not 'share' their individual faith (it was all lighthearted, so there will be any reported kidnappings). I have to confess  I do understand the sentiment (that doesnt make me evil ?) ?

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
a couple of points from two of your previous posts

wakawaka wrote:

NOOOOO thats completely backwards.   Physics (in fact ALL OF SCIENCE) requires certain preconditions of intelligibility those preconditions include laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.  IF you dont have these you cant even have coherent thought much less physics.

 

Logic does change. It is not immutable. If you do a simple search on Wikipedia for "history of logic," you will find that the first human attempts at logic were in Egypt and Babylonia. Egyptians empirically discovered some geometric properties as solutions for building massive projects such as irrigation systems and pyramids. A Babylonian in the 11th century BCE (~1200 years before Jesus) wrote a set of logical axioms and assumptions. I'll bet he wasn't Jewish, either, but thought of Marduk and company as his gods. Logic continued to evolve through studies by the Greeks - Pythagoras (geometry again), Plato and Aristotle. It has continued to evolve with new methods and axioms developed for our increasingly complex computer systems requirements and other similar complex systems problems.

As for uniformity of nature - only roughly so. Take a physics lab course at some point. One of the first things you are taught is how to draw error bars on your results graphs. Drop a cannon ball from a tower a number of times and time the fall as precisely as you can. The results will not be identical every time.

Intelligibility - we have people who are not intelligible. Some of them are born so mentally disabled that they are unable to learn language. Some are physically injured so that they can not form the sounds that create spoken language. Helen Keller, e.g. There is no question we must be able to communicate with each other in order to create - almost anything. And if it is so very important, what game is god/s/dess playing by taking away that ability from someone who is an infant?

 

wakawaka wrote:

If you dont know everything how can you know anything for certain? 

IF you  dont know everything, and logically speaking, would it be possible, however improbable, that the Christian God could exists?

 

I strongly also recommend looking up Bayes Theorem. This is not for the faint of heart. If you haven't encountered the theorem before, if you have not had probability or statistics, it may be a little thick.

The gist is that one does not need to know the answer precisely. One only needs to approximate the answer, then continue approximating as you have new information. You will eventually approximate close enough to be where you want an adequate answer. Sounds too iffy? It's how GPS works. You test and gain new information, you restate the problem and continue to test until you are close enough to satisfy the problem.

(The degree of satisfaction will vary with the problem. If I am within 50 miles of Las Vegas and I intend to go to Las Vegas, that is likely close enough to get the rest of the way there without significant error. If instead, I am looking for the Luxor Hotel in Vegas, I probably am not close enough to the solution to be satisfied with my location fifty miles away from city center.)

I don't know everything, regardless of how often I sound like a know-it-all. I am certain enough that god/s/dess does not exist that the certainty is of a magnitude that satisfies me. We are back to "my whys are answered for me, not for you." Is it possible the christian god exists? I put the probability at less than 1% - from my experiences and the rather obvious lack of empirical evidence. Does a teapot orbit Alpha Centuri? Who knows? Who cares? What is the probability of same? Who gives a care? Not me. And so I reject the hypothesis of the teapot and of the christian god. Give me some verifiable, repeatable, scientific evidence and I'll consider revising my opinion. Only consider? Darn straight. I need more than one solid result to form an opinion. I recommend this skeptical attitude especially when consuming what passes for news on the various media before rushing out and getting that new weight loss drug. Or whatever they are selling this week.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Edit :: Typeo It's Know and not 'N0' (although ...)

 

   Number 104  Sm (Small Edit) --

     { Edit ::  It's know and not 'no', (maybe) }


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:   I

danatemporary wrote:

   I was reading, a little harsh (tongue-en-cheek), about people fantasizing wanting take these people and turn them over to an fbi type integration room  for 72 hours. With the sleep deprivation (SD) the bright lights the badgering, the full works. UNTIL they confess, they many no someone personally who doesnt not 'share' their individual faith (it was all lighthearted, so there will be any reported kidnappings). I have to confess  I do understand the sentiment (that doesnt make me evil ?) ?

 

Nah - not evil. I understand. It can be very frustrating and one's patience can be stretched very thin. As long as you don't act on it, you are not evil, you are normal.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi again Waka

 

wakawaka wrote:

//'Certainty; is always questionable //  Are you certain?...................Not trying to berate you or be cute, as I have come to have quite a bit of respect for you, but it makes the point.

I'm a fallibilist in terms of epistemology, with skepticism and empiricism thrown in. It seems apparent that we are not in a position to be certain about anything - including what we consider the veracity of our own knowledge. For instance, I can't be certain of the nature of abiogenesis and you can't be certain of the nature of universal first cause.

Neither of us can be certain. For this reason the most annoying christians of my acquaintance made a beeline for Bayesian probability when things get tenuous. Atheists on the other hand, generally admit to not knowing for certain. I believe this is because they have nothing to lose in the confession. 

Personally, I think we should always retain an element of honest doubt. That's why most here are agnostic atheists. We see no evidence of an inadequately defined god, but we can't prove such a thing does not exist. And that's because no one can prove what exists outside space time. We can speculate but not with certainty and we should never support our speculations with threats. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//assertion empirical evidence can't prove thought is a physical process//  NO, thats not what I am saying.  Thought is in part a physical process, but you need external preconditions of intelligibility to make thought work.

 

 

What we consider 'thought' has only been detected in the brains of living organisms. These thoughts are ended by injury or death. We agree on this. The second half of what you say: 'external preconditions of intelligibility' is a bald assertion. I understand why you make this assertion but it cannot be shown to be certainly true. It's an hypothesis without supporting data. I would argue that what you call external preconditions are actually aspects of internal human consciousness interacting with its external environment.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//that somehow an undefinable supernatural god resolves all these questions with certainty. //   He ABSOLUTELY does, and if you will indulge me in answering the questions below (along with a few more to come) you will see how.  We will get there......

If you dont know everything how can you know anything for certain? 

IF you  dont know everything, and logically speaking, would it be possible, however improbable, that the Christian God could exists?

 

I think I already covered this but again, we can't know anything is absolutely certain though I think philosophers generally agree we should behave as if we do. 

It's possible that outside the universe anything could exist. I've never heard a coherent definition of the christian god so when you say god could exist, I don't know what you mean. Is god a man, is he material, is he immaterial, is he supernatural, is he anthropomorphic human love, perfect (but angry) subjective in-group justice? Is he the quantum glue that binds gluons together? The warm feeling within the mammalian limbic system stimulated by the concept of logos?

Can humans, forced only to use the analogies supplied by their miniscule terrestrial existence, describe to themselves the nature of things they have not seen, that exist on a scale they cannot comprehend? I cannot conceive of an atom, Waka. I have no idea of the milky way, much less the universe. To posit that something I cannot conceive was created by something I cannot define, breaches my sense of intellectual integrity. 

This does not apply to your arguments, but to be threatened by the christian (or muslim) doctrine, to be told that I will be punished by burning for this lack of comprehension of the humanly incomprehensible, constitutes a fallacious appeal to force that leads me to consider the core of monotheist doctrine to be irrational. Whatever they believe, christians cannot conceive of god, either. They have replaced 'god' with accessible personal analogy. 

But there is something that does seem certain from the point of view of human comprehension. For more than 3.5 billion years, organic cellular life has existed on this planet, surviving through biochemical interactions that have allowed it to form 'reasonable beliefs' about its environment sufficient for ongoing survival. The survival of life on the basis of biochemical sense data is certain. What this means is that sense data has, and does, give living organisms true knowledge about some aspects of their environment. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I strongly also

cj wrote:

I strongly also recommend looking up Bayes Theorem. This is not for the faint of heart. If you haven't encountered the theorem before, if you have not had probability or statistics, it may be a little thick. 

Not that I have any hope Waka is going to read it, but for any lurkers out there we have had a few threads with really good introductions and discussions about Bayes Theorem.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33512

http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right

http://www.rationalresponders.com/bible_history_bayes_theorem

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

I strongly also recommend looking up Bayes Theorem. This is not for the faint of heart. If you haven't encountered the theorem before, if you have not had probability or statistics, it may be a little thick. 

Not that I have any hope Waka is going to read it, but for any lurkers out there we have had a few threads with really good introductions and discussions about Bayes Theorem.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33512

http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right

http://www.rationalresponders.com/bible_history_bayes_theorem

 

I am fully expecting another "why" whine.

Waka, you are getting to be so repetitive, it is getting more and more difficult to be polite to you. Think about it. What are you trying to prove?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hello V,//Prove it. You

Hello V,

//Prove it. You can't, because you're wrong.//    Can you describe something you have never heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or experienced/observed V?  Can you create or invent anything at all that doesnt borrow from what you have experienced or observed through your senses?  The proof, my friend, is the impossibility of the contrary.

 

//No, we need that in order to invent logic and science as working disciplines. You're the one who has things backwards.//  No V, science describes and observes nature and the laws of logic. You cant invent the laws logic, rather "science" is just the name of a methodology that we are able to use (because we observe uniformity in nature) we have given to the way we describe or categorize logic.

For example:

I know that you know about the law of non contradicition which is one of the laws of logic.  That is to say nothing can both exist and not exist in the same time space and manner.  SO, could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time space and manner BEFORE their were human minds around to create the laws of logic????


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hello V,//Prove that thought

Hello V,

//Prove that thought requires consistency. You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.//

ok here it goes.  Are you ready?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, how was that for a proof?  I can you you another proof if you like?

 

//Nature is not uniform. Whatever gave you that ridiculous notion?//

  I see the sun come up everyday.  I put my feet on the floor when I wake and have always encountered the nuclear forces in the floor that prevent gravity from pulling me through the floor.  As far as I can remember water has always been wet and words have always had meanings because I can rely on uniformity in nature.  I also suspect an apple would land on the ground if I dropped it right now.  I have more reasons if you like.


Of course nature is material. EVERYTHING is material. //  The laws of logic are not material. 

Do you know everything V?  Could you be wrong about everything you know?  What is your standard by which you judge certainty.?  Will you say it is your reasoning and your senses?

 

 

 

 


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hello V,//Prove that thought

Hello V,

//Prove that thought requires consistency. You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.//

ok here it goes.  Are you ready?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, how was that for a proof?  I can you you another proof if you like?

 

//Nature is not uniform. Whatever gave you that ridiculous notion?//

  I see the sun come up everyday.  I put my feet on the floor when I wake and have always encountered the nuclear forces in the floor that prevent gravity from pulling me through the floor.  As far as I can remember water has always been wet and words have always had meanings because I can rely on uniformity in nature.  I also suspect an apple would land on the ground if I dropped it right now.  I have more reasons if you like.


Of course nature is material. EVERYTHING is material. //  The laws of logic are not material. 

Do you know everything V?  Could you be wrong about everything you know?  What is your standard by which you judge certainty.?  Will you say it is your reasoning and your senses?

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Can you

wakawaka wrote:
Can you describe something you have never heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or experienced/observed V?

Yes. An electron is something I have never heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or experienced/observed. Yet I can describe one.
That's merely one example.

wakawaka wrote:
Can you create or invent anything at all that doesnt borrow from what you have experienced or observed through your senses?

I don't know. Never tried.

wakawaka wrote:
The proof, my friend, is the impossibility of the contrary.

You haven't proven anything. You're playing philosophical games. That's it.

wakawaka wrote:
science describes and observes nature and the laws of logic

No waka, science is no more or less than a conglomeration of observations, and tests of those observations. The only laws of logic are the ones people invented. Logic can be useful to scientific observation, but without an actual living being it doesn't exist.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote: You cant

wakawaka wrote:
You cant invent the laws logic

Oh yes we can. We proved that when we invented them.

wakawaka wrote:
rather "science" is just the name of a methodology that we are able to use (because we observe uniformity in nature) we have given to the way we describe or categorize logic.

Still wrong on the fundamental basics. Nature is not uniform, and thanks to science we know that. Nature is consistent (usually), but not uniform.

wakawaka wrote:
I know that you know about the law of non contradicition which is one of the laws of logic.  That is to say nothing can both exist and not exist in the same time space and manner.  SO, could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time space and manner BEFORE their were human minds around to create the laws of logic????

That doesn't make any sense at all. Why should the universe exist and not exist simultaneously? And what do we have to do with it?

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hi Beyond Saving,you said

Hi Beyond Saving,

you said //Like what? Do you have evidence of this?//  Sure the loaws of logic and the uniformity of nature.  Its hard to have coherent thought without them.

 

//You can't.//

Sure I can in my worldview. 

You see unless you know everything, you cant know anything for certain.  At best you can only rely on your own senses.  But how can you know your own senses are valid?  By what standard, in your worldview, do you validate your reasoning or certainty?

The only way to know anything for certain is to know someone who knows everything. 

Im not saying you cant know things, but you would have to borrow from my worldview to prevent any knowledge claim you make from reaching absurdity.  Without positing the Christian God you can make no knowledge claim with certainty.  Try it.

 

//No, because the Christian God is self contradicting so if you are relying on standard logic as accepted by humans the Christian God is logically impossible.// 

Are you acepting the laws of logic?  How does an atheist believe in something that is immaterial like the LOL?  It works well in my worldview as we believe in immaterial(spirit) and absoulte things. These comport with the nature of the Christian GOD who says he is spirit and does not change.  How is it that an atheist uses something that is immaterial?  You are borrowing from my worldview.

 

// If you throw logic out the window and if absolutely everything we have observed is false the Christian God might be possible//  IF, IF, IF......Are you conceeding then that IF you dont know everything then it could be possible, no matter how improbable, that the Christioan GOD could exist or not?

 

// Since we don't have any basis to believe that all of our observations are completely false and fabricated//  There is plenty of basis.  In fact it is overwhelming.  If you dont know everything how can you know any observation is true?  You couldnt even know your senses or even your memory was valid.

 

//(Note: there are a number of deities that would be logical possibilities and would be consistent with most of our observations. //  Concratulations!  you just posited a deity to try and make sense of your worldview.  You just became a theist.   See what I mean now?

 

//As such I can state with an extreme amount of confidence that the Christian God does not exist.//   "Confidence"? Sounds like faith.  What about evidence?  Can you prove that the Christian GOD does not exist?  Doesnt LOGIC dictate that since you dont know everything that it is possible, however improbable, that he could exist?

 

//I have as much confidence in that as I do that gravity is going to prevent me from floating away when I step outside tomorrow. Sure, it is possible that gravity might not exist when I wake up tomorrow and I will float into the treetops, but it would mean that all human observations of gravity have been wrong and it would be rather irrational for me to believe it is possible without evidence.  //  I am very glad to see that you believe in the uniformity of nature.  Now tell me,  how do you account for the uniformity of nature.  It too is immaterial.

 

//I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.- H.L. Mencken//

First account for the standard to properly discern truth in order to validate your knowledge.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hello V//Yes. An electron is

Hello V

//Yes. An electron is something I have never heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or experienced/observed. Yet I can describe one.
That's merely one example. //  You have heard of it and experienced evidence for it thats why you can describe it. 

 

//I don't know. Never tried.// And yet you say we created the laws of logic.  Thats a leap.  There is nothing man can create.  He merely observes, experiences, uses and or rearranges what is already around him.

 

//No waka, science is no more or less than a conglomeration of observations, and tests of those observations//

Thats what i have been telling you. You cant observe or use anything if it doesnt already exist.  Furthermore, you cant even have tests without uniformity in nature.

 

//Logic can be useful to scientific observation, but without an actual living being it doesn't exist.// 

If thats true, and before humans existed, then it would be perfectly ok to say the universe both existed and not existed in the same time space and manner because there were no humans around to think up the law of non contradiction.  Without the LOL coherent thought could not have been formed to think up science and logic in the first place.

 


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
HI CJ - Been a while since I

HI CJ - Been a while since I have responded to your posts. My appologies.  Its hard to respond to everyone and the later it gets the harder it is to type.  Hope all is well with you.

You said....

//Logic does change. It is not immutable. If you do a simple search on Wikipedia for "history of logic," you will find that the first human attempts at logic were in Egypt and Babylonia. Egyptians empirically discovered some geometric properties as solutions for building massive projects such as irrigation systems and pyramids. A Babylonian in the 11th century BCE (~1200 years before Jesus) wrote a set of logical axioms and assumptions. I'll bet he wasn't Jewish, either, but thought of Marduk and company as his gods. Logic continued to evolve through studies by the Greeks - Pythagoras (geometry again), Plato and Aristotle. It has continued to evolve with new methods and axioms developed for our increasingly complex computer systems requirements and other similar complex systems problems.//

People and science get things wrong or observe things incorectly all the time.  But the laws of logic remain.  This is known as the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

//As for uniformity of nature - only roughly so. Take a physics lab course at some point. One of the first things you are taught is how to draw error bars on your results graphs. Drop a cannon ball from a tower a number of times and time the fall as precisely as you can. The results will not be identical every time.//

THis is the fallacy of false analogy.  The point is the cannon ball still falls to the ground.

 

//Intelligibility - we have people who are not intelligible. Some of them are born so mentally disabled that they are unable to learn language. Some are physically injured so that they can not form the sounds that create spoken language. Helen Keller, e.g. There is no question we must be able to communicate with each other in order to create - almost anything. And if it is so very important, what game is god/s/dess playing by taking away that ability from someone who is an infant?//

AKA the fallacy of irrelevant thesis.  Just because you dont understand or know why GOD does something is not proof he doesnt exist.  The point is preconditions have to exists before there is coherent thought.

//I strongly also recommend looking up Bayes Theorem. This is not for the faint of heart. If you haven't encountered the theorem before, if you have not had probability or statistics, it may be a little thick.

 

The gist is that one does not need to know the answer precisely. One only needs to approximate the answer, then continue approximating as you have new information. You will eventually approximate close enough to be where you want an adequate answer. Sounds too iffy? It's how GPS works. You test and gain new information, you restate the problem and continue to test until you are close enough to satisfy the problem.

 

(The degree of satisfaction will vary with the problem. If I am within 50 miles of Las Vegas and I intend to go to Las Vegas, that is likely close enough to get the rest of the way there without significant error. If instead, I am looking for the Luxor Hotel in Vegas, I probably am not close enough to the solution to be satisfied with my location fifty miles away from city center.)  //

But thats the whole point I have been making CJ. Given your worldview you can never even get to .000000001% of certainty.  If you dont know everything you can never know anything for certain.  Its not a matter of degree. YOu continually take in info and re-evaluate never understanding you have no way to verify your senses, your memory or even your own existence.  Furthermore, the reason you do need a standard for certainty is because without it every knowledge claim you have made can be reduced to circular absudity.  Note: in order to form a theorem you need the laws of logic and  the uniformity in nature.

//I don't know everything, regardless of how often I sound like a know-it-all//  THen you cant know anything to any degree of certainty and any claim of knowledge is absurdity.  You have to have a standard outside of your own reasoning and observations to validate knowledge.  Especially if you claim you dont know everything.

 

//Is it possible the christian god exists? I put the probability at less than 1% - from my experiences and the rather obvious lack of empirical evidence. Does a teapot orbit Alpha Centuri? Who knows? Who cares? What is the probability of same? Who gives a care? Not me. And so I reject the hypothesis of the teapot and of the christian god. Give me some verifiable, repeatable, scientific evidence and I'll consider revising my opinion. Only consider? Darn straight. I need more than one solid result to form an opinion. I recommend this skeptical attitude especially when consuming what passes for news on the various media before rushing out and getting that new weight loss drug. Or whatever they are selling this week.//

The proof that GOD exists is that without him you couldnt prove or know anything.  You cant prove an ultimate standard with evidence or else the evidence would be the ultimate standard.  You cant come to GOD via evidence, rather you need GOD to validate evidence.  GOD is the maker of evidence. 

 

 

 

 


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 HI AE!  Hope all is well

 

HI AE!  Hope all is well with you and yours.  Its 2 in the morning here so please forgive any mispellings as I can barely keep my eyes open.

//Neither of us can be certain.//  Yes we can.  I am not dealing with probabilties or degrees of certainty.  I am and will not run  or shy away from the logical PROOF that GOD does exist.  You cannot evidence your way to GOD my friend.  Rather, you have to start with GOD to have a standard for evidence.   As with all ultimate standards (not an infinite regression) if evidence could validate the ultimate standard then the evidence itself would be the ultimate standard.  THE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS IS THAT WITHOUT HIM YOU COULDNT KNOW OR PROVE ANYTHING TO ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.

 

 

//We see no evidence of an inadequately defined god// Thats part of the point AE.  If you could wholy define GOD he wouldnt be adequate.

 

//I would argue that what you call external preconditions are actually aspects of internal human consciousness interacting with its external environment.//

Exactly, the "external environment " is one of the preconditions.  THought requires observation, but you cant observe something if it isnt there.

 

//I think I already covered this but again, we can't know anything is absolutely certain //  Yes we can.  if you dont know everything, then yuo cant know anything for certain.  But if you know someone who does know everything then you can know somethings for certain.

//I think philosophers generally agree we should behave as if we do. //  Interesting.  I wonder why?

 

//I've never heard a coherent definition of the christian god so when you say god could exist, I don't know what you mean. Is god a man, is he material, is he immaterial, is he supernatural, is he anthropomorphic human love, perfect (but angry) subjective in-group justice? Is he the quantum glue that binds gluons together? The warm feeling within the mammalian limbic system stimulated by the concept of logos?// 

If you could define him he wouldnt be GOD.  Isnt this what you would expect or at least require?  He does give us some descriptions of his nature though.

 

//Can humans, forced only to use the analogies supplied by their miniscule terrestrial existence, describe to themselves the nature of things they have not seen,that exist on a scale they cannot comprehend? I cannot conceive of an atom, Waka. I have no idea of the milky way, much less the universe.//

Do you believe in atoms AE?  Do you believe in the MIlky way and the universe?  If you could conceive them there would be no GOD. 

To posit that something I cannot conceive was created by something I cannot define, breaches my sense of intellectual integrity.// 

In order to make this statement my friend you would have to have certainty which you have already denied.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In the words of someone I did not know I'd miss : Antipatris...

Re :: Points for trying

wakawaka wrote:

The proof that GOD exists is that without him you couldnt prove or know anything. GOD is the maker of evidence.

YOU have been trying to argue it both ways since you've come to this board. Infallibility of Perception. But Dont trust your perceptions. Incontrovertible evidence introduced would help to prove what you are suggesting is actually fact, that is supposed to be so conclusive that there can be no other truth. Ahh There is your problem, but you dont see? At best you are arguing from either propositions of the infinite regress, causally speaking, depending on the cause that proceeded it. Problem. Why certainly, now was that Shemp or Curly, slips my mind? Or you've been interrupting by to wit forceful asserting, for lack of a better term: plausibility angle. A plausibility, I might add you've come to disingenuously, to say the least. You act as if you insist obstinately and strenuously just enough. These 'argumentative' assertions WONT, heaven for offense, come crashing and down around your ears. Good Luck with that.

p.s. -- I actually miss Antipatris, hope he and the Mrs. have a nice holiday a good day. Dana is not without her sympathy


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote: You have

wakawaka wrote:
You have heard of it and experienced evidence for it thats why you can describe it. 

So? That wasn't one of your requirements.

wakawaka wrote:
And yet you say we created the laws of logic. 

We did.

wakawaka wrote:
There is nothing man can create. 

You're a complete idiot. Man has created trillions of things. We even created your god.

wakawaka wrote:
Thats what i have been telling you.

No it isn't. You're a liar as well as a delusional idiot.

wakawaka wrote:
Furthermore, you cant even have tests without uniformity in nature.

Pure bullshit. Clearly you don't even know what uniformity means.

wakawaka wrote:
If thats true, and before humans existed, then it would be perfectly ok to say the universe both existed and not existed in the same time space and manner because there were no humans around to think up the law of non contradiction.

Bullshit. Before humans existed the universe still existed. Logic is an invention.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote: People and

wakawaka wrote:

People and science get things wrong or observe things incorectly all the time.  But the laws of logic remain.  This is known as the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

It is unclear exactly what in my post you are applying the fallacy of hasty generalization to:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html wrote:

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

  1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
  2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.

Since my source had numerous quoted references, all of which anyone is free to hunt up, I have plenty of sources to make my assertion that the rules of logic have changed to accommodate changes in the requirements for those rules of logic. Also, that there are many different sets of rules of logic used for different problems. It isn't hasty, if there are a fair number of examples. First year philosophy student?

 

wakawaka wrote:

THis is the fallacy of false analogy.  The point is the cannon ball still falls to the ground.

http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm wrote:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

 

No, the point is that nothing is precise - the best we can do is accurate enough that "it" works - whatever it may be. I don't see how this is a false analogy fallacy since you missed my entire point. My example about the imprecision of measurement wasn't an analogy, it was and is actual fact. Take any physics or engineering class. You learn about error bars, about confidence intervals, about all the ways you can be as careful as possible and your measurements still don't come out identical every time you measure. Which is the entire idea behind "measure twice, cut once."

It is true that we can rely on the cannonball falling as long as it is in a gravity well. What we can not rely on is the precise measurement of the speed or trajectory of that falling ball. There are many variables that first year physics classes ignore for the sake of simplicity in solving the given problems. And for most engineers - close enough is good enough, because exactly precise is not going to happen.

Every so-called law was discovered by empirical measurement. Even Newton's law of universal gravitation (force=gravity*(mass1*mass2)/radius^2) is an approximation and it works well enough most of the time for what goes on here in earth's (and the sun's) gravity well. All bets are off if you change the conditions. This happens in other fields as well. If you are studying electrical conductivity, what works for the electrical power for a city or home, works not at all when you place your apparatus in conditions near absolute zero (super conduction). What happens in a chemical manufacturing facility does not work if you increase (or decrease) pressure and/or temperature. Reliable - to a point. And you have to know what that point is for the particular application you are examining if you want to be able to analyze the results you obtain through your experimentation.

Prediction - sure. Within a known confidence interval - or error bar. Accurate? Close enough for stuff to work. Precise? Exact? No. Perfectly the same each and every time you run an experiment? Pfffttttt..........

IF god/s/dess is so freaky perfect, why the heck is the "uniformity of the universe" so sloppy? And if you are going to tell me it is all the fault of man's imperfections, I am going to point out the astonishing degrees of precision man has obtained in measurement theory and it still is sloppy.

 

wakawaka wrote:

AKA the fallacy of irrelevant thesis.  Just because you dont understand or know why GOD does something is not proof he doesnt exist.  The point is preconditions have to exists before there is coherent thought.

http://www.steelonsteel.com/2011/11/10/fallacy-of-the-week-fallacy-of-irrelevant-thesis/ wrote:

Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis _ involves proving a valid point, but not the point at issue.

 

Related to the red herring fallacy. I was not rebutting that preconditions have to exist before there is coherent thought. I was, instead, agreeing that was the case. The question - and it is relevant to my mind if you are discussing why god/s/dess must exist - is if language is so necessary, just why are there conditions that cause language to not exist? How is this any refection of some perfect deity? Your point is rather no point to my mind if we are discussing proof of god/s/dess.

 

wakawaka wrote:

But thats the whole point I have been making CJ. Given your worldview you can never even get to .000000001% of certainty.  If you dont know everything you can never know anything for certain.  Its not a matter of degree. YOu continually take in info and re-evaluate never understanding you have no way to verify your senses, your memory or even your own existence.  Furthermore, the reason you do need a standard for certainty is because without it every knowledge claim you have made can be reduced to circular absudity.  Note: in order to form a theorem you need the laws of logic and  the uniformity in nature.

......

THen you cant know anything to any degree of certainty and any claim of knowledge is absurdity.  You have to have a standard outside of your own reasoning and observations to validate knowledge.  Especially if you claim you dont know everything.

 

Why the hell do I need to know anything for 100% certain? I need to know for enough certainty to get whatever I'm doing done. I have ways to verify my existence, my perceptions, and my memory. The standard I have for certainty is the same one every scientist uses - repeatable, verifiable evidence. I know I exist because I think so, my friends and family think so, the university I attend thinks so, my bill collectors think so, etc. It is repeatable in that many people believe I exist. The knowledge of my existence is also verifiable - what all those people who know me agree on is that they have evidence of my existence in a real, physical sense, in a real, emotional sense, and in a real, cognitive sense. That is what verifiable means - we all agree that the evidence presents the reality of my existence. Similar arguments work for my perceptions and my memory. Repeatable, verifiable evidence is all I need for a standard of certainty close enough to get through my day.

Every knowledge claim I make is - as well as I am able - based on repeatable, verifiable evidence. I have worked very hard all of my life at making my beliefs, opinions and knowledge based on evidence. Repeatable, verifiable evidence. If you - and/or others - choose to base your knowledge claims on some imaginary (because of a lack of repeatable, verifiable evidence) god/s/dess, that is your choice. I choose not to.

Imagination is wonderful and can lead to good things if it is followed up by an analysis of the repeatable, verifiable evidence. Airplanes were imaginary until many people - including the Wright brothers - tested, repeated, tested, repeated and finally verified their ideas with a timed flight in front of an audience. Imagination is fun if you are watching silly movies or reading fiction. Personally, I want to go see Despicable Me 2 as I enjoyed the first movie. This in no way means I believe in the movie. Separate imagination from reality - you will attain your goals more consistently.

 

wakawaka wrote:

The proof that GOD exists is that without him you couldnt prove or know anything.  You cant prove an ultimate standard with evidence or else the evidence would be the ultimate standard.  You cant come to GOD via evidence, rather you need GOD to validate evidence.  GOD is the maker of evidence. 

 

Nope, man is the maker of evidence through repeatable, verifiable experimentation. The evidence is the ultimate standard. Repeat, repeat, repeat, verify, verify, verify, peer-review. Rinse, repeat. If god/s/dess exist, and they really, truly want me to believe, s/he/it/they have to come up with repeatable, verifiable, evidence. If s/he/it/they expect me to have "faith," it isn't happening. If that means I go to hell, so be it. I refuse to compromise on this.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Soitenly

danatemporary wrote:
Why certainly, now was that Shemp or Curly, slips my mind?

Curly.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hi Dana//YOU have been

Hi Dana

//YOU have been trying to argue it both ways since you've come to this board. Infallibility of Perception. But Dont trust your perceptions.//

NO, you have complete misunderstanding.  I am discussing the difference between 2 different worldviews.  Yours has no path to validate its evidence, no standard for the certainty of truth.  It relies on science without being able to account for the preconditions of intelligibility.  Can you account for the imaterial laws of l ogic.   Can you account for the uniformity of nature?  Because of this I submit to you that you can make no valid knowledge claims without borrowing from my world view.

 

//There is your problem, but you dont see? At best you are arguing from either propositions of the infinite regress//  I think it is you who doesnt see.  No infintie regress in my worldview just an ultimate standard.   For A to be true we must know B.  For B to be true we must know c and so on until Z(ultimate standard).  If there were anything else to prove Z then Z would not be the ultimate standard but rather it would be the proof of z itself.  Z MUST be able to prove itself to be the ultimate standard.  It must reach a sort of Modus Tollens Sylogistic state.   YOU see you cannont prove GOD with evidence or else the evidence itself would be the ultimate standard.  YOu cannot evidence your way to GOD, you have to start with GOD to validate your evidence.     By the way,  this is not my argument.  It comes straight out of the Bible.  So see if you can prove it wrong.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
HI V,// We did.//  V, how

HI V,

// We did.//  V, how can you create logic without first using logic so that you could create it in the first place?     

 

//You're a complete idiot. Man has created trillions of things. We even created your god.//

No V, man can CREATE nothing.  Here merely rearranges that which already exists or that which he has already observed.  Can you think of a color without using an existing color?

 

//Pure bullshit. Clearly you don't even know what uniformity means.//  What would be the purpose or reliability in testing anything if nature werent uniform.  Release a rock from your hand and it will fall everytime.

 

//lshit. Before humans existed the universe still existed. Logic is an invention.//  If there were no minds to create laws of logic, then how could there be the law of non contradiction before there were minds to think it up?  If the law of non contradiction did not exists before there were human minds to think it up then the universe, by your own standard, could have existed and not existed at the same time, in the same manner and space,  whis is of course rediculous.  You argument fails its own standard.

 


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
HI CJ//No, the point is that

HI CJ

//No, the point is that nothing is precise //  Are you certain that nothing is precise?  By what standard do you validate this knowledge.  Are you employing your observations, your senses, your reasoning?  How can you trust that your observations, your senses and reasoning are valid?   hmmmm?

//It is true that we can rely on the cannonball falling as long as it is in a gravity well. What we can not rely on is the precise measurement of the speed or trajectory of that falling ball. There are many variables that first year physics classes ignore for the sake of simplicity in solving the given problems. And for most engineers - close enough is good enough, because exactly precise is not going to happen.//

another knowledge claim.  Again, if you cant account for things like the laws how logic then none of these claims have validity to knowledge.  All I have to ask is how can you know for certain.

//Why the hell do I need to know anything for 100% certain? I need to know for enough certainty to get whatever I'm doing done. I have ways to verify my existence, my perceptions, and my memory. The standard I have for certainty is the same one every scientist uses - repeatable, verifiable evidence// 

THATS THE WHOLE POINT!  You cant be certain that you senses or reasoning or memory or observation regarding said evidence is valid becuase you have no ultimate standard outside of your own senses and reasoning.  Its viciously circular.  IF YOU DONT KNOW EVERYTHING YOU CANT KNOW ANYTHING.  You couldnt even trust your own senses to judge any evidence.

 

//I know I exist //  The fallacy of begging the question or assuming the proof.   when you say "I" you are assuming you exist.  Are you starting to see the problem yet?  You cant even know you exist without an external immaterial standard.  Can you account for the immaterial laws of logic?  YOu use them, but you cant account for them. Immaterial laws are part of my worldview not yours.

 

//The knowledge of my existence is also verifiable - what all those people who know me agree on is that they have evidence of my existence in a real, physical sense, in a real, emotional sense, and in a real, cognitive sense. That is what verifiable means - we all agree that the evidence presents the reality of my existence.//

ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.  If you dont know everything then you could be wrong about anything.  Even what you call verifiable, testable, observable.  If you cant account for the preconditions of intelligibilty any so call verifiable knowledge claim you make is reduced to absudity.  HOw do you know for certain that what you and others have verified is true?

 

//Every knowledge claim I make is - as well as I am able - based on repeatable, verifiable evidence.//  How do you know?

//Imagination is wonderful and can lead to good things if it is followed up by an analysis of the repeatable, verifiable evidence.//  How do you know?

//I have worked very hard all of my life at making my beliefs, opinions and knowledge based on evidence. Repeatable, verifiable evidence. If you - and/or others - choose to base your knowledge claims on some imaginary (because of a lack of repeatable, verifiable evidence) god/s/dess, that is your choice.//

How do you know your claims of knowledge arent imaginary? Especially since you cant account for the preconditions of knowledge.  By what standard do you know your evidence is verifiable?  In my worldview, I can account for the immaterial preconditoins of knowledge.  Therefore my world view is not imaginary and because of the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY.

//Nope, man is the maker of evidence //  No man observes evidence and then makes a judgement.  But that judgement is based on your worldview and your worldview is based on presuppositions.   It is not a battle over evidence.  It is a battle over presupostions,  and that is what you are having such a hard time with.  One man looks around the world and says see there is no evidence of GOD.  Another man looks around the world and says see there is nothing but evidence of GOD.  They both see the same world, but their presuppostions makes them judge the same evidence differently.  And so the argument is never resolved using evidence.  There is always an escape mechanism for either party.  The only way to resolve the argument is to account for the correct standard for our presuppostions.  I can prove that my standard works.  It validates my evidence.  You have yet to do so not being able to account for the laws of logic which you use on FAITH.

//The evidence is the ultimate standard//  But this is a statement of certainty which you gave up long ago.

//If s/he/it/they expect me to have "faith," it isn't happening. If that means I go to hell, so be it. I refuse to compromise on this.//

Sad.  We need people like you on our team.  If we could define or comprehend the whole of GOD then he would not be GOD.  It is absurd to think, given that we live in a material world, that we could use material evidence to prove that something is immatterial.  You have to use presuppositions.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote: V, how can

wakawaka wrote:
V, how can you create logic without first using logic so that you could create it in the first place?

That's a circular argument fallacy. If you needed logic to create logic then logic could never exist.

wakawaka wrote:
No V, man can CREATE nothing.

Nothing is the only thing man CANNOT create. Yet, at least.

wakawaka wrote:
Here merely rearranges that which already exists or that which he has already observed.  Can you think of a color without using an existing color?

That wouldn't be creating a colour. Every single possible colour already exists. You're using an unapplicable analogy.

wakawaka wrote:
What would be the purpose or reliability in testing anything if nature werent uniform.  Release a rock from your hand and it will fall everytime.

You were wrong the first time you claimed this and nothing has changed since. Nature is demonstrably not uniform. If it were, then travel into space would not be possible because space would not exist.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote: If there

wakawaka wrote:
If there were no minds to create laws of logic, then how could there be the law of non contradiction before there were minds to think it up? 

It didn't exist before there were minds to think it up. The law of non contradiction specifically refers to processes OF THOUGHT.
NOT the universe. The universe will do what it does whether or not there are beings pondering what it does. As per the known and unknown laws of physics.
In other words, without thinking beings, there is no law of non contradiction.

See entanglement, or Schrödinger's cat.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
V,//That's a circular

V,

//That's a circular argument fallacy.// No, its not a circular fallacy.  Its a question.  I want to know how you can think if you dont have something to think about? YOu have to observer or experience something before you can think about it.

//If you needed logic to create logic then logic could never exist.//  How did man create the laws of logic without using logic, v?   How is it possible to think without the laws of logic V?

//Every single possible colour already exists//  How do you know V?  Do you know everything? Why cant man simply create more?  Man can create nothing.  He cant evein think outside of his own experience.  Your concept of color is based soley on your experience of it. 

 

 


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
v,//It didn't exist before

v,

//It didn't exist before there were minds to think it up.//

 Then the universe could have both existed and not existed in the same time space and manner (By your reasoning).

// The law of non contradiction specifically refers to processes OF THOUGHT. //  And how do those processes of thought occur without first observing laws of logic?


//The universe will do what it does whether or not there are beings pondering what it does. //

So does that mean beings OBSERVE the laws of the universe (like the laws of logic) instead of creating them???

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:No, its not a

wakawaka wrote:
No, its not a circular fallacy.

Yes it is.

wakawaka wrote:
Its a question. 

It's a fallacious question framed in a circular argument.

wakawaka wrote:
I want to know how you can think if you dont have something to think about?

Logic does not equal thought, and thought does not require logic.

wakawaka wrote:
YOu have to observer or experience something before you can think about it.

No you have to be able to think. That's it.

wakawaka wrote:
How did man create the laws of logic without using logic, v?  

How is it that man requires logic to invent logic w?
Funny how you can't see yourself running in circles.

wakawaka wrote:
How is it possible to think without the laws of logic V?

How is it not possible to think without the laws of logic W?

wakawaka wrote:
How do you know V?

Because I know what colour is.

wakawaka wrote:
Do you know everything?

Not even close. But I do know what colour is.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Why cant man

wakawaka wrote:
Why cant man simply create more?

Because every possible colour already exists.

wakawaka wrote:
Man can create nothing.  He cant evein think outside of his own experience.

Repeating yourself after being refuted only proves your lack of knowledge and capacity to think critically.

wakawaka wrote:
Your concept of color is based soley on your experience of it.

No, my concept of colour is based on my knowledge of electromagnetism and the way light and heat refracts.
You probably don't have a clue what I just said or how it relates. lol.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Then the

wakawaka wrote:
Then the universe could have both existed and not existed in the same time space and manner (By your reasoning).

Ridiculous. That's a genetic fallacy.

wakawaka wrote:
And how do those processes of thought occur without first observing laws of logic?

Again, how can they not?

wakawaka wrote:
So does that mean beings OBSERVE the laws of the universe (like the laws of logic) instead of creating them???

YES.
Except the laws of logic, because they were invented and have no bearing on the universe, which doesn't think.

Every 'law' of the universe is a description of an observation, not an actual law.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
reality

I believe part of what makes discussing this with you difficult is that you conflate concepts and symbolism with reality.

 

wakawaka wrote:

HI CJ

//No, the point is that nothing is precise //  Are you certain that nothing is precise?  By what standard do you validate this knowledge.  Are you employing your observations, your senses, your reasoning?  How can you trust that your observations, your senses and reasoning are valid?   hmmmm?

 

I know that my observations, my senses and reasoning are valid because I'M NOT DEAD YET. If my senses didn't work and I had no assistance, I wouldn't be able to survive. If my reasoning was incorrect, I wouldn't be able to survive. If my observations were incorrect, nothing would work as I expected. IT WORKS, IT IS VALID. Dude, I have a degree in engineering, how do you think my mind works? I don't understand how yours works - I don't understand how you can woo-woo through your day.

THAT is how I validate my observations, senses, reasoning - THEY WORK and I survive. No magic required.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//It is true that we can rely on the cannonball falling as long as it is in a gravity well. What we can not rely on is the precise measurement of the speed or trajectory of that falling ball. There are many variables that first year physics classes ignore for the sake of simplicity in solving the given problems. And for most engineers - close enough is good enough, because exactly precise is not going to happen.//

another knowledge claim.  Again, if you cant account for things like the laws how logic then none of these claims have validity to knowledge.  All I have to ask is how can you know for certain.

 

IT WORKS that is enough certainty. Yeah, everyone is sloppy with their language. I'm certain I live in the northwestern United States. How do I KNOW? Because, that is what the post office recognizes as my address, everyone else in my area uses similar addresses, the weather patterns are a certain way, Google maps says so. Gee whillikers - I don't need logic to tell me, everyone and everything around me tells me. Knowledge = Justified Belief. I have justified belief, my beliefs are justified, I have knowledge.

You want philosophy, I'll give you some. Forgive quoting wiki, but that was quickest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge wrote:

Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic. In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." However, no single agreed upon definition of knowledge exists, though there are numerous theories to explain it.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, association and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings.

 

There is nothing here about the source of knowledge being anything other than what I can derive for myself. How do I "know" this definition is good enough? BECAUSE IT WORKS. That is all I care about.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Why the hell do I need to know anything for 100% certain? I need to know for enough certainty to get whatever I'm doing done. I have ways to verify my existence, my perceptions, and my memory. The standard I have for certainty is the same one every scientist uses - repeatable, verifiable evidence// 

THATS THE WHOLE POINT!  You cant be certain that you senses or reasoning or memory or observation regarding said evidence is valid becuase you have no ultimate standard outside of your own senses and reasoning.  Its viciously circular.  IF YOU DONT KNOW EVERYTHING YOU CANT KNOW ANYTHING.  You couldnt even trust your own senses to judge any evidence.

 

I DO have other standards other than my own senses. I have other people's corroboration, I have successes and failures in my daily life. I turn the key and my car starts - if I have done some minimal maintenance. I don't have to know everything in order to know my car will start today because it started yesterday and I bought gas and filled the tank. There were no indications that the starter, ignition, etc were starting to fail. So, I know my car will start. Do I have to know all of the all of the everything to know that? No. I don't NEED a freaking ultimate standard.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I know I exist //  The fallacy of begging the question or assuming the proof.   when you say "I" you are assuming you exist.  Are you starting to see the problem yet?  You cant even know you exist without an external immaterial standard.  Can you account for the immaterial laws of logic?  YOu use them, but you cant account for them. Immaterial laws are part of my worldview not yours.

 

Here is the conflation. The "laws" of logic are based on the properties of reality. If reality were different, the laws would be different. PEOPLE came up with "A can not be not-A." PEOPLE decided that an apple is an apple and not a banana or an orange or a gorilla. Conventions. Symbolism. Short cuts for communicating with each other. If we speak different languages, we have to come up with a bridge to understand each others symbolism.

Does logic have anything to do with the existence of apples, gorillas, people, etc? Nope. Reality is that there are objects, things, entities that people give names to. Logic is the rules we defined to explain how reality works. Who determined how reality works? No one. Immaterial laws? Nothing more than convenient symbolism for people.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//The knowledge of my existence is also verifiable - what all those people who know me agree on is that they have evidence of my existence in a real, physical sense, in a real, emotional sense, and in a real, cognitive sense. That is what verifiable means - we all agree that the evidence presents the reality of my existence.//

ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.  If you dont know everything then you could be wrong about anything.  Even what you call verifiable, testable, observable.  If you cant account for the preconditions of intelligibilty any so call verifiable knowledge claim you make is reduced to absudity.  HOw do you know for certain that what you and others have verified is true?

 

BECAUSE OUR ACTIONS - BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE VERIFIED TO BE TRUE - WORK. If our actions do not have the desired outcome(s), then what we thought was true is not. And if our actions have the desired outcome, then our knowledge is true. If science didn't work, we wouldn't be on the internet arguing about it. If the principles, theories, and knowledge people discovered and explicated were not true, you couldn't start a fire to roast the antelope you spitted with your spear.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Every knowledge claim I make is - as well as I am able - based on repeatable, verifiable evidence.//  How do you know?

//Imagination is wonderful and can lead to good things if it is followed up by an analysis of the repeatable, verifiable evidence.//  How do you know?

//I have worked very hard all of my life at making my beliefs, opinions and knowledge based on evidence. Repeatable, verifiable evidence. If you - and/or others - choose to base your knowledge claims on some imaginary (because of a lack of repeatable, verifiable evidence) god/s/dess, that is your choice.//

How do you know your claims of knowledge arent imaginary? Especially since you cant account for the preconditions of knowledge.  By what standard do you know your evidence is verifiable?  In my worldview, I can account for the immaterial preconditoins of knowledge.  Therefore my world view is not imaginary and because of the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY.

 

Dude --- I know because it works. Do I have to repeat it again? Fine. My actions generate the outcomes I desire. Therefore, the knowledge I base my actions on is correct. My actions generate repeatable outcomes. Other people perform the same actions and have similar outcomes. Repeatable. My actions are verifiable because the outcomes I generate are validated by other people - yeah, the car started. You are making the entire argument about big ideas when the little ideas demonstrate the principle. The big ideas are a waste of time and energy. I don't need to know the ultimate knowledge of the universe. It has no impact on my daily activities. And that is all I care about.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Nope, man is the maker of evidence //  No man observes evidence and then makes a judgement.  But that judgement is based on your worldview and your worldview is based on presuppositions.   It is not a battle over evidence.  It is a battle over presupostions,  and that is what you are having such a hard time with.  One man looks around the world and says see there is no evidence of GOD.  Another man looks around the world and says see there is nothing but evidence of GOD.  They both see the same world, but their presuppostions makes them judge the same evidence differently.  And so the argument is never resolved using evidence.  There is always an escape mechanism for either party.  The only way to resolve the argument is to account for the correct standard for our presuppostions.  I can prove that my standard works.  It validates my evidence.  You have yet to do so not being able to account for the laws of logic which you use on FAITH.

 

I create evidence, I make evidence. I fill a glass with water, add salt, stir, and the salt crystals dissolve. Evidence that salt is soluble in water. I made that evidence by adding the salt to water and stirring. The evidence is observed by my senses, sure. I could test the saltiness of the ocean and compare with fresh water, but that doesn't tell me what is causing the salt taste of the ocean. Verifying by dissolving salt crystals in fresh water and getting salty water for my effort, creates evidence that it was the salt, and not some other substance like dog hair.

Faith - claiming to know what you don't know. I do not claim to know the "laws of logic," and I don't particularly care about them. They are convenient for passing various classes, but the reality of the world is what I am interested in. Not some symbolism some people made up. I don't use them on faith, since I am not claiming knowledge.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//The evidence is the ultimate standard//  But this is a statement of certainty which you gave up long ago.

//If s/he/it/they expect me to have "faith," it isn't happening. If that means I go to hell, so be it. I refuse to compromise on this.//

Sad.  We need people like you on our team.  If we could define or comprehend the whole of GOD then he would not be GOD.  It is absurd to think, given that we live in a material world, that we could use material evidence to prove that something is immatterial.  You have to use presuppositions.

 

Well, you aren't going to get people like me on your team. Why the hell would you want me? All I would do is tell you how full of shit you are. If god/s/dess wants me to believe in him/her/it/them, they can jolly well do something that makes sense to me. Faith is a cop out. Believe in doodly squat because doodly squat is all you are going to get.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hi V,//Every 'law' of the

Hi V,

//Every 'law' of the universe is a description of an observation, not an actual law.//  BINGO!!!  That says it all.  Thats what I have been saying.  You cant invent or know anything without FIRST observing something.  And to observe something it must already exist.  You could not describe the laws of logic, and call it a law, unless you first observed them.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:BINGO!!! 

wakawaka wrote:
BINGO!!!  That says it all. ~snip~

Not quite. Logic isn't a law of the universe, it's a law of thought. Minds must exist in order for it to be possible. And they must invent logic for it then to exist.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Do the Hokey-pokey and you turn yourself around . .

  Re :: Do the  Hokey-pokey and you turn yourself around . .

 See:: Image

  I'm sorry what we talking about ?

Actually he was the son of Dagon. Although there could be confusion, "the most plausible view is that Baal was 'literally' regarded as the Son of Dagon, but that he was also understood as the son of El in the same sense that all the Ugaritic gods were ..had its' origin in El"  ¬Day (**Damn these internet sources would have to ruin a joke,.**)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  Re ::

danatemporary wrote:

  Re :: Do the  Hokey-pokey and you turn yourself around . .

 See:: Image

  I'm sorry what we talking about ?

Actually he was the son of Dagon. Although there could be confusion, "the most plausible view is that Baal was 'literally' regarded as the Son of Dagon, but that he was also understood as the son of El in the same sense that all the Ugaritic gods were ..had its' origin in El"  ¬Day (**Damn these internet sources would have to ruin a joke,.**)

ROFL, stop Dana, it hurts.... my abs can't handle it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
hello CJ,//I believe part of

hello CJ,

//I believe part of what makes discussing this with you difficult is that you conflate concepts and symbolism with reality.// OF course you realize it is your "reality" that I am questioning, not nomenclature.

//THAT is how I validate my observations, senses, reasoning - THEY WORK and I survive. No magic required.// 

Soooo  your senses, observations and reasoning work bcause your senses, observations and reasoning tell you they work,  and the sky is blue because the sky is blue...........viciously circular fallacy.   

 

//IT WORKS that is enough certainty. Yeah, everyone is sloppy with their language.//   That is not certainty, not even 0.00000001%.  SInce you say you dont know everything you cant know anything to any degree of certainty.

//I DO have other standards other than my own senses. I have other people's corroboration,// NO difference.  It still goes through you.

// I don't NEED a freaking ultimate standard.//  Thats why your argument is viciously circular and you cannot validate evidence to any degree of certainty.

 

//Here is the conflation. The "laws" of logic are based on the properties of reality. If reality were different, the laws would be different.//

Thats what I have said all along, that they (give it whatever naming convention you want) are observations in nature of pre existing conditions and not chemical reactions in the brain.  Different people with different chemical reactions in the brain  would produce different laws of logic which is silly (in general) not accounting for the mentally ill.  Glad to see your coming around.

 

//PEOPLE decided that an apple is an apple and not a banana or an orange or a gorilla. Conventions. Symbolism. Short cuts for communicating with each other. If we speak different languages, we have to come up with a bridge to understand each others symbolism.// 

Give them whatever name you want.  The point is they exist and they existed before there were minds to observe and name them.

 

//Does logic have anything to do with the existence of apples, gorillas, people, etc? Nope. Reality is that there are objects, things, entities that people give names to. Logic is the rules we defined to explain how reality works. Who determined how reality works? No one. Immaterial laws? Nothing more than convenient symbolism for people//

Cant name something unless it already exists.

//BECAUSE OUR ACTIONS - BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE VERIFIED TO BE TRUE - WORK. //

YA!  Acourding to your senses! Begging the question/ viciously circular " My senses and reasoning are valid because my senses and reasoning tell me they are valid.

 

//If science didn't work, we wouldn't be on the internet arguing about it. //  Science presupposes the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, but you still havent accounted for them.  You use and believe in them, but it doesnt comport well with your worldview - that is believing in something that is immaterial and that you cant account for.  This however works well in my worldview.

//I create evidence, I make evidence. I fill a glass with water, add salt, stir, and the salt crystals dissolve. Evidence that salt is soluble in water. I made that evidence by adding the salt to water and stirring. The evidence is observed by my senses, sure//

My argument is not over the evidence CJ, your still missing the point. 

//Well, you aren't going to get people like me on your team. Why the hell would you want me?//  Smart, passionate

// If god/s/dess wants me to believe in him/her/it/them, they can jolly well do something that makes sense to me. Faith is a cop out.// 

That's why the argument is not over evidence.  I look at the world and see evidence everywhere that makes sense.  YOu look around the world and see the same evidence and interpret it differently.  THe argument is over our presupositions and which presuposition keeps one from viciously circular reasoning.  Besides, any God that you could fully comprehend or make sense of is not worthy of your worship.  You cannot understand the whole of him, just bits and pieces.  This is what you would expect.  And, since you cannot understand him in his entirety there must be faith.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Hi Beyond

wakawaka wrote:

Hi Beyond Saving,

you said //Like what? Do you have evidence of this?//  Sure the loaws of logic and the uniformity of nature.  Its hard to have coherent thought without them.

Nonsense, millions of people have thoughts without logic every day. Look in the mirror for Exhibit A.

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

//You can't.//

Sure I can in my worldview.

So you know everything? That is a pretty arrogant claim. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

You see unless you know everything, you cant know anything for certain.  At best you can only rely on your own senses.  But how can you know your own senses are valid?  By what standard, in your worldview, do you validate your reasoning or certainty?

You choose the most likely option, should you gain new evidence at any time in the future you adjust. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

The only way to know anything for certain is to know someone who knows everything. 

Is there anyone in the world who knows everything? In my experience, no such person exists. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

Im not saying you cant know things, but you would have to borrow from my worldview to prevent any knowledge claim you make from reaching absurdity.  Without positing the Christian God you can make no knowledge claim with certainty.  Try it.

 

I don't make any knowledge claim with certainty. Simply making a claim with certainty does not make it true, it only makes you a liar. Are you a liar?

 

wakawaka wrote:

//No, because the Christian God is self contradicting so if you are relying on standard logic as accepted by humans the Christian God is logically impossible.// 

Are you acepting the laws of logic?  How does an atheist believe in something that is immaterial like the LOL?  It works well in my worldview as we believe in immaterial(spirit) and absoulte things. These comport with the nature of the Christian GOD who says he is spirit and does not change.  How is it that an atheist uses something that is immaterial?  You are borrowing from my worldview.

The Laws of Logic are hardly immaterial, nor do they have anything to do with the Abrahamic God. They were thought up by a people who never heard of the Abrahamic God nor ever thought of him and the basis of logic was thought up long before the Christian God was imagined by the ignorant barbarians in the middle east. They are based solely on human observation of the world and throughout history have been edited several times to match our understanding. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

// If you throw logic out the window and if absolutely everything we have observed is false the Christian God might be possible//  IF, IF, IF......Are you conceeding then that IF you dont know everything then it could be possible, no matter how improbable, that the Christioan GOD could exist or not?

 

I freely admit it is a possibility. I never said it wasn't. It is also a possibility that I am just a computer program in the matrix and you don't really exist. There are trillions of possibilities, most of which are extremely unlikely and not worth wasting a moment of thought on. Your precious God is one of those trillions and less likely than most.  

 

wakawaka wrote:

// Since we don't have any basis to believe that all of our observations are completely false and fabricated//  There is plenty of basis.  In fact it is overwhelming.  If you dont know everything how can you know any observation is true?  You couldnt even know your senses or even your memory was valid.

Which is why science doesn't rely on the observations of any single human. It relies on the observations of many and repeatable experiments which provide the same results regardless of who conducts the experiment. The observations of a single human should never be trusted, our perception can easily be influenced by a myriad of drugs or mental conditions.

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

//(Note: there are a number of deities that would be logical possibilities and would be consistent with most of our observations. //  Concratulations!  you just posited a deity to try and make sense of your worldview.  You just became a theist.   See what I mean now?

No, a theist is a person who believes in one of those possibilities. I don't believe, I merely accept them as potentials and if evidence of their existence was provided I would believe. Currently, there is no evidence.

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

//As such I can state with an extreme amount of confidence that the Christian God does not exist.//   "Confidence"? Sounds like faith.  What about evidence?  Can you prove that the Christian GOD does not exist?  Doesnt LOGIC dictate that since you dont know everything that it is possible, however improbable, that he could exist?

I never said he couldn't exist. I said it is extremely unlikely that he exists. (and if he exists, he is a fucking asshole that does not deserve our worship but that is another issue). It is possible that unicorns exist too, but you are still an idiot if you believe that they exist. Confidence is not faith because confidence is based on the amount of evidence available, faith is explicitly believing in something despite the lack of evidence. In other words, the more evidence I have to support a hypothesis, the more confident I am that the hypothesis is accurate. Faith is belief without supporting evidence by definition. You have faith when you are unable to get evidence to support your belief, you have confidence when you have evidence to support your belief. Huge difference. It is literally the difference between nothing and a lot. 

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

//I have as much confidence in that as I do that gravity is going to prevent me from floating away when I step outside tomorrow. Sure, it is possible that gravity might not exist when I wake up tomorrow and I will float into the treetops, but it would mean that all human observations of gravity have been wrong and it would be rather irrational for me to believe it is possible without evidence.  //  I am very glad to see that you believe in the uniformity of nature.  Now tell me,  how do you account for the uniformity of nature.  It too is immaterial.

Where did I say nature was uniform? Even gravity is not uniform. The amount of gravity you experience varies depending on where you are. Are you incapable of grasping any concept beyond the macro? Nature is not uniform, our observation of it has routinely shown that nature is chaotic. 

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

//I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.- H.L. Mencken//

First account for the standard to properly discern truth in order to validate your knowledge.

Lol that is my sig. The standard? Mine. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
HI V,//Minds must exist in

HI V,

//Minds must exist in order for it to be possible. And they must invent logic for it then to exist.//

No.  If that were true then men could keep inventing their logic varying with each person.  You would have to use logic in order to invented it, which is silly and circular.  YOu would have to observe the laws before you could THINK of a way to describe them, not invent them. 

Perhaps you could invent or create some new form of logic for us right now and show us how it's done?

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka

wakawaka wrote:
No.

Yes.

wakawaka wrote:
If that were true then men could keep inventing their logic varying with each person.

They do. When you learn how to use logic, you destroy the previous form of logic that you made up. You learn how to use logic in a way that works, instead of a way that works sometimes, or even never. Why does the fallacy of observer bias even exist if people don't exhibit it? It is illogical for people to fall victim to observer bias, and yet it happens all the time, to everyone. Every fallacy of logic has been committed by people, which is why some smart people described the fallacy, showed why it was fallacious, and named the fallacy to enable easier communication of said fallacy.
Inventing logic.
Which also proves that people and thoughts do not require logic, refuting a point I've been dragging you towards, slowly, in the hopes a lightbulb will go off.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Hi Beyond,//Nonsense,

Hi Beyond,

//Nonsense, millions of people have thoughts without logic every day. Look in the mirror for Exhibit A.//

But according to your worldview, that is that man created the laws of logic, who is to say one man's logic is true and another mans logic is false?  hmmm

 

//So you know everything? That is a pretty arrogant claim. //

No I have been saying that unless you know everything then you can't know anything for certain.  However, if you know someone who does know everything then I can know SOME things for certain.  If you do not first start with the Christian GOD, a standard outside of your own reasoning and senses, then any knowledge claim you make is reduced to absudity. 

 

//You choose the most likely option, should you gain new evidence at any time in the future you adjust.//  Doesnt matter, given your worldview, you still have to rely on your own senses and reasoning which you cannot account for because you cannot acount for immaterial things like the laws of logic.

 

//I don't make any knowledge claim with certainty. //

Are you certain about that?

//Simply making a claim with certainty does not make it true, //    Are you certain about that?

 

It seems to me you make alot of certainty claims.  Claims to certainty work well in my worldview.  I have a path to certainty.  You keep borrowing from my worldview.

 

//The Laws of Logic are hardly immaterial, nor do they have anything to do with the Abrahamic God. They were thought up by a people who never heard of the Abrahamic God nor ever thought of him and the basis of logic was thought up long before the Christian God was imagined by the ignorant barbarians in the middle east. They are based solely on human observation of the world and throughout history have been edited several times to match our understanding.//

If they are based on human observation then they had to exist before they were thought up because you first observed them.  You would have had to use the laws of logic in order to invent them.  If human minds created the laws of logic then different humans could have different laws of logic.  Who is to say one persons laws of logic would be right and another persons would be wrong?  we observe the uniformity of nature and are able to think with standards which we happen to call the laws of logic.  We dont create them, we observe them.  They are immaterial.

Perhaps you could give me a demonstration and create a new set of laws of logic for us right now? 

 

//I freely admit it is a possibility. I never said it wasn't. //

Well, I give you much credit here for being intellectually honest and direct.  Most I have seen won't even concede to this logic.

If it is possible , however improbable, that the Christian GOD does exist would it also be possible, however improbable, that he could reveal things to me that I could know them for certain?  Mind you, I am not asking you to believe this, I m just asking would it be possible, however improbable, that he could do this?

 

//It is also a possibility that I am just a computer program in the matrix and you don't really exist. There are trillions of possibilities, most of which are extremely unlikely and not worth wasting a moment of thought on. Your precious God is one of those trillions and less likely than most. //

PLease understand.  I am NOT dealing in probabilities.  I am making the claim that the Christian GOD does absolutely exist and that it can be LOGICALLY proven by the impossibility of the contrary.

 

//Which is why science doesn't rely on the observations of any single human. It relies on the observations of many and repeatable experiments which provide the same results regardless of who conducts the experiment. //   Ahhhh so nature is uniform after all.

//The observations of a single human should never be trusted, our perception can easily be influenced by a myriad of drugs or mental conditions. SO//

SO it doesnt matter.  All that information, even from other humans, still has to flow through your senses and reasoning.  And, if you can account for the preconditions of intelligibility like the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic then your certainly couldnt trust your senses much less anyone elses.  

//No, a theist is a person who believes in one of those possibilities. I don't believe, I merely accept them as potentials and if evidence of their existence was provided I would believe. Currently, there is no evidence.//

 You cannot evidence your way to an ultimate standard (GOD).  If evidence could prove the ultimate standard then the evidence itself would be the ultimate standard. for examle, we know "a" is true because of "b" and we know "b" is true because of "c" and so on until we get to "z"(the ultimate standard).  If there was evidence that  "z" was true then "z" would not be the ultimate standard.  The ultimate standard must be able to prove itself.  THe only to do that is to show that without the ultimate standard the evidence becomes absurd. ( the impossibility of the contrary) 

 It is silly to think you can use the material world to prove an immaterial thing.  But if you cant account for that immaterial thing then the material evidence has no validity.

//Where did I say nature was uniform? //

When you said this ..... //It relies on the observations of many and repeatable experiments which provide the same results regardless of who conducts the experiment. //

Science presupposes the uniformity of nature. 

//Even gravity is not uniform. The amount of gravity you experience varies depending on where you are.//  does it consistanty vary depending on where you are????

//Nature is not uniform, our observation of it has routinely shown that nature is chaotic. //  If it were not uniform, then tell me , what would be the point of ROUTINE observations?

//Lol that is my sig. The standard? Mine.//  I know, and i challenge it.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:No I have

wakawaka wrote:
No I have been saying that unless you know everything then you can't know anything for certain.

How do you know that for certain, when you admit you don't know everything?

Your argument is literally self refuting.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:But according

wakawaka wrote:

But according to your worldview, that is that man created the laws of logic, who is to say one man's logic is true and another mans logic is false?  hmmm

 

As others have repeatedly pointed out, the one that is the most accurate in reflecting/predicting the physical world. Also as many have pointed out logic and the disciplines that have branched out of it have changed radically from when it was first thought up. Logic is simply provides us a model to help interpret the world and there are different logical systems. Perhaps the most blatant example is the field of geometry where we have several radically different models all of which can provide us valuable ways to model the physical world. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//So you know everything? That is a pretty arrogant claim. //

No I have been saying that unless you know everything then you can't know anything for certain.  However, if you know someone who does know everything then I can know SOME things for certain.  If you do not first start with the Christian GOD, a standard outside of your own reasoning and senses, then any knowledge claim you make is reduced to absudity.

As Vastet pointed out your argument refutes itself with your own premise. You can't be certain you know someone that knows everything if you can't know anything for certain without knowing everything. You can't be certain god knows everything unless you know everything, which you have admitted you do not, so by your own standard, your knowledge claim is reduced to absurdity.

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

//You choose the most likely option, should you gain new evidence at any time in the future you adjust.//  Doesnt matter, given your worldview, you still have to rely on your own senses and reasoning which you cannot account for because you cannot acount for immaterial things like the laws of logic.

 

I did account for logic, but yes, we rely on our own senses and reasoning. Quite often, our senses and reasoning are wrong. It is ok to be wrong. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I don't make any knowledge claim with certainty. //

Are you certain about that?

Nope.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Simply making a claim with certainty does not make it true, //    Are you certain about that?

 

Nope. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

It seems to me you make alot of certainty claims.  Claims to certainty work well in my worldview.  I have a path to certainty.  You keep borrowing from my worldview.

What certainty claim did I make? Every claim I make is open to change if someone can provide me evidence that is compelling. You can't have a path to certainty under your own worldview. You have repeatedly said you can't know anything for certain unless you know everything and you don't know everything. Therefore, under the syllogistic logic system that you think is extra-human, it is impossible for you to be certain about anything. Let me break it down for you,

All A (people who are certain about anything) are B (people who know everything)

No B are C (you).

Therefore, no C is A. 

Which according to the syllogistic logic model is true if the premises are true. So if you accept the syllogistic model and your premises are all true, then you cannot be certain about anything according to the laws of logic. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

If they are based on human observation then they had to exist before they were thought up because you first observed them.  You would have had to use the laws of logic in order to invent them.  If human minds created the laws of logic then different humans could have different laws of logic.  Who is to say one persons laws of logic would be right and another persons would be wrong?  we observe the uniformity of nature and are able to think with standards which we happen to call the laws of logic.  We dont create them, we observe them.  They are immaterial.

Perhaps you could give me a demonstration and create a new set of laws of logic for us right now? 

There are many different logic models. In addition to classical logic, you have fuzzy logic, computability logic, linear logic, modal logic, propositional logic, intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent logic, boolean logic and probably several others that I am not familiar with. We observe the world and we create logic models to help us interpret/predict it and help us create conclusions using deductive and inductive reasoning. We know our models are not perfectly accurate as we cannot perfectly predict most (any?) things in the world. Our models do get really close. However, it is perfectly possible that someday these models will become antiquated and we will find a better one. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I freely admit it is a possibility. I never said it wasn't. //

Well, I give you much credit here for being intellectually honest and direct.  Most I have seen won't even concede to this logic.

You should hang out around here. I would be stunned if a single regular on this site disagreed with me and have seen many others express the same sentiment. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

If it is possible , however improbable, that the Christian GOD does exist would it also be possible, however improbable, that he could reveal things to me that I could know them for certain?  Mind you, I am not asking you to believe this, I m just asking would it be possible, however improbable, that he could do this?

I suppose. It is also possible that I am in a coma and this whole conversation is just happening in my imagination and you don't really exist. Hell, it is possible that I am God and erased my memory so I could live a human life down here on Earth to experience life in my creation kind of like an omnipotent god's version of play "The Sims". However, since there is absolutely no evidence to support either of those hypothesis, I would be crazy to believe they were true.

 

wakawaka wrote:
 

PLease understand.  I am NOT dealing in probabilities.  I am making the claim that the Christian GOD does absolutely exist and that it can be LOGICALLY proven by the impossibility of the contrary.

 

And that is why you are an idiot.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Which is why science doesn't rely on the observations of any single human. It relies on the observations of many and repeatable experiments which provide the same results regardless of who conducts the experiment. //   Ahhhh so nature is uniform after all.

No. Predictable /= uniform. Nature is somewhat predictable, it is not uniform. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

SO it doesnt matter.  All that information, even from other humans, still has to flow through your senses and reasoning.  And, if you can account for the preconditions of intelligibility like the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic then your certainly couldnt trust your senses much less anyone elses.  

It is practical to trust your senses until you have reason to believe they are wrong, for example, if you are seeing a pink elephant and no one else around you sees it, you have evidence that either your senses are wrong or everyone else's are. For practical day to day purposes, it makes sense to assume your senses are more or less accurate because they are all you have. And yes, you will be wrong a lot about all sorts of things, and that is ok because most of the things you are wrong about don't matter. It is ok to not know everything, and it is ok to act without being certain. That is the human condition.  

 

wakawaka wrote:

You cannot evidence your way to an ultimate standard (GOD).  If evidence could prove the ultimate standard then the evidence itself would be the ultimate standard. for examle, we know "a" is true because of "b" and we know "b" is true because of "c" and so on until we get to "z"(the ultimate standard).  If there was evidence that  "z" was true then "z" would not be the ultimate standard.  The ultimate standard must be able to prove itself.  THe only to do that is to show that without the ultimate standard the evidence becomes absurd. ( the impossibility of the contrary)

Are you certain? lol

 

wakawaka wrote:

 It is silly to think you can use the material world to prove an immaterial thing.  But if you cant account for that immaterial thing then the material evidence has no validity.

It is silly to believe there is an immaterial thing or an "ultimate standard". And if there were an immaterial thing which had zero physical evidence, that would mean that the immaterial thing has absolutely no effect on anything material, in which case it doesn't matter whether it exists or not because it does not influence anything at all. So why even worry about it? If the immaterial thing does have any influence over anything material then it would create physical evidence. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

Science presupposes the uniformity of nature. 

No it doesn't. It observes and tries to identify similarities and trends. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Even gravity is not uniform. The amount of gravity you experience varies depending on where you are.//  does it consistanty vary depending on where you are????

No. It varies predictably. As I pointed out earlier, predictability /= uniformity. Much of our scientific predictions are based on models that allow us to approximate based on probability. It is a rare thing when we can predict anything exactly every time. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Nature is not uniform, our observation of it has routinely shown that nature is chaotic. //  If it were not uniform, then tell me , what would be the point of ROUTINE observations?

If you have ever read a single scientific journal in your life you would see that the raw data is almost always scattered. Scientists use probability a lot, especially when dealing with the natural world. Inside a laboratory we can control variables and get fairly exact, but even in the most exacting sciences there is variation between the results. Fortunately, it isn't important that we are perfectly accurate with everything. For example, below is a basic graph showing the gravity predicted by a particular model and actual observed gravity. This is a pretty basic graph with few data points. Many scientific graphs have significantly more data points and scientists attempt to create models that explain and predict trends. Then they collect more data to see how well the model works. If nature was nice and uniform, we wouldn't have to take all these routine measurements and consistently tweak our models, we would be able to perfectly predict everything. 

 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Lol that is my sig. The standard? Mine.//  I know, and i challenge it.

Whatever gets you excited. I don't feel a need to validate my knowledge to you. If I make any claim you think is untrue I am happy to provide whatever evidence I have. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Waka

 

wakawaka wrote:

HI AE!  Hope all is well with you and yours.  Its 2 in the morning here so please forgive any mispellings as I can barely keep my eyes open.

All good this way. Brand new baby girl came Saturday morning and all is well. Hope you are great, too. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Neither of us can be certain.// 

Yes we can.  I am not dealing with probabilties or degrees of certainty.  I am and will not run  or shy away from the logical PROOF that GOD does exist.  You cannot evidence your way to GOD my friend.  Rather, you have to start with GOD to have a standard for evidence.   As with all ultimate standards (not an infinite regression) if evidence could validate the ultimate standard then the evidence itself would be the ultimate standard.  THE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS IS THAT WITHOUT HIM YOU COULDNT KNOW OR PROVE ANYTHING TO ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.

 

Yeah, I get this part of your argument, I just don't agree with it. I don't agree that logic alone allows us to form reasonable belief about the environment. I think our sense of what is logical here on Earth governs what we label as logical. I would argue that we don't know things with complete certainty, further that empiricism demands we always remain open to reworking what we think of as being the truth, and that our theory of mind, is just as open to question as everything else in the natural world. I think we can know things to be more or less certainly true based on interlocking hypotheses supported by data. I grant primacy to sense data. I think our 'laws' reflect our sense of reality governed by this sense data. I appreciate you find spirit in knowledge. I don't get that god is a pre-condition of all knowledge. Why and how is this so?   

 

wakawaka wrote:

 //We see no evidence of an inadequately defined god//

 

Thats part of the point AE.  If you could wholy define GOD he wouldnt be adequate.

 

Yes, I understand this argument and I can conceptually 'feel' how it works for you. However, to me, the inability to define a thing means that its existence as a 'being' outside space time must remain bald assertion.  

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I would argue that what you call external preconditions are actually aspects of internal human consciousness interacting with its external environment.//

Exactly, the "external environment " is one of the preconditions.  THought requires observation, but you cant observe something if it isnt there.

 

I think I understand what you are saying - that god is the source of material reality, which is a precondition of thought, these 2 things being bound together. Clearly, I don't reify the natural world in this way. But our positions here are not so disparate from an operational point of view. I think biochemical conditions on this planet made our brains and our comprehensions the way they are. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I think I already covered this but again, we can't know anything is absolutely certain // 

 

Yes we can.  if you dont know everything, then yuo cant know anything for certain.  But if you know someone who does know everything then you can know somethings for certain.

 

We disagree here. We are not in a position to judge whether a 'being' (a living organism with mass in space and time) that has not been defined and that exists outside space time, knows anything, let alone everything. To know such a thing we would have to be capable of knowing everything, which we are not. We are instead forced to accept bald assertion on the basis of other 'proofs'.

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I think philosophers generally agree we should behave as if we do. //  Interesting.  I wonder why?

 

This is a curly one. While we cannot know things to be certainly true, it's not possible to exist in this material reality with behaving in a decisive and intuitive way when it comes to what our sense experience tells us is reasonable belief. Atomic magnetic forces hold my chair together but there's no point agonising over the humanly invisible details. I may assume the chair will hold me up because experience tells me it has always done so before. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

//I've never heard a coherent definition of the christian god so when you say god could exist, I don't know what you mean. Is god a man, is he material, is he immaterial, is he supernatural, is he anthropomorphic human love, perfect (but angry) subjective in-group justice? Is he the quantum glue that binds gluons together? The warm feeling within the mammalian limbic system stimulated by the concept of logos?// 

If you could define him he wouldnt be GOD.  Isnt this what you would expect or at least require?  He does give us some descriptions of his nature though.

 

The trouble I have with these descriptions of god (eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect love, perfect justice) is that they are either labels that are pasted on unmeasurable human mental concepts that cannot truly be conceived, or they are an attempt to reify anthropomorphisms such as 'love' (an emergent property of mammalian brains on this planet), or justice, (a subjective sense of right and wrong biased to the in-group).  

I see why you argue this way but it puts you in the paradoxical position of insisting the only way to surely know about the existence of a particular 'being' is through its property of being unknowable.  

 

wakawaka wrote:

//Can humans, forced only to use the analogies supplied by their miniscule terrestrial existence, describe to themselves the nature of things they have not seen,that exist on a scale they cannot comprehend? I cannot conceive of an atom, Waka. I have no idea of the milky way, much less the universe.//

Do you believe in atoms AE?  Do you believe in the MIlky way and the universe?  If you could conceive them there would be no GOD. 

 

I would not say I 'believe in' atoms or the local galaxy, that would imply a requirement for faith in relation to material objects it's possible for us to detect using our instruments. It's also possible to model atoms and galaxies and to predict their behaviour. While we can't be sure of things, we can prove their existence more or less strongly on the basis of interlocking hypotheses supported by data. 

Given our personal lack of conceptual certainty in the face of what are quite small aspects of material reality - atoms - I argue it's not possible to say with any certainty what might exist outside space time. We can hypothesise, we can assume, we can imagine. Such questions are a joy to consider. But we cannot know with certainty. 

 

wakawaka wrote:

To posit that something I cannot conceive was created by something I cannot define, breaches my sense of intellectual integrity.// 

In order to make this statement my friend you would have to have certainty which you have already denied.

 

Not really. As an agnostic atheist I already admit I cannot prove the non existence of a supernatural first cause that has been neither defined, nor detected. Nor do I have to be certain of 'truth' to form a floating position of more or less certainty in relation to what information is available to me. It seems self evident, that I as a single person, know very little about the reality around me. If I try to project my small brain outside the universe I am assured of succumbing to the Kruger-Dunning effect.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Are congrats in order?

Atheistextremist wrote:

All good this way. Brand new baby girl came Saturday morning and all is well. Hope you are great, too. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wonderful Wonderful news :)

cj wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

All good this way. Brand new baby girl came Saturday morning and all is well. Hope you are great, too. 

 



 

 

  Mazel  Tov

___

  Boring is Safe; Boring IS good  ¬Ron-Stoppable

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Brand

Atheistextremist wrote:
Brand new baby girl came Saturday morning and all is well.

Grats!

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Cheers folks

 

 

She arrives after 5 years of IVF, 3 losses and much torment.

Thank you, medical science. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck