The answer to the "Does God exist" question from Human Practice [Archive]

heusdens

Aug8-03, 08:48 AM

A. The basic question of philosophy

Man's early investigation into the world of knowledge have shown a division of philosophic schools into two main camps. Both camps can be divided at the basis of the way in which they answer the basic question of philosophy, which is the question as what substance or entity forms the basic or primary ingredient of the world without which the world would not exist. Idealism has answered this with the primacy of consciousness. Materialism has answered this with the primacy of matter. Theism on this issue relates to Idealism in that it answers that that necessary being is God. Both materialist and idealist ideologies have since their appearence in Greek philosophy (Plato - Idealism, Herodites/Democritus - Materialism) been developed greatly in the course of history. Idealism had it's greatest succes with the appearence of Hegel's philosophy (Phenomenology of Mind, Science of Logic) which has left the world the method of dialectics. Materialism had it's succes with the appearence of dialectical- and historical materialism, developed by Marx, Engels and others.
In the critique of Marx on Hegel's dialectics, the following fragment shows the reason why the objective existence of God must be denied:

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

B. Answer from human practice

An answer to the question outside of a specific historic societal context makes the question into a meaningless theoretical issue which only could raise the interest of an alienated being that exist outside of any social context and any objective reality which - as we have seen in the conclusion of the previous part - does not denote any real and objective being. Man's answer to the basic question of philosophy should therefore have to be found within and at the basis of the reality of human society itself at this stage of development of mankind.

1. Man´s early history

The historic account of man´s early development, in which man himself was struggling with the forces of nature and the struggle for survival, has shown that man´s early history and alongside the use of primitive tools, various forms of nature religions were developed. Man, no longer ape and at the start of a long historic human development had questioned the origin of the forces that governed and determined his existence, and of which man was entirely dependend. Religion was an early form of expressing such basic questions about reality in which Spirit or God was the provisional anwer. Cultural and social develpment of mankind shaped these primitive nature religions into other forms, which gave rise to the foundation of modern religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and others.

2. Man´s development into a scientific world outlook

The formation of man´s intelligent reasoning power, based on man´s biological evolution, enabled man to ask questions, man could not yet answer. The technical and scientific qualities of mankind were at that point in history far too limited to answer the questions man could ask himself about the world of nature, life, and human society.
The provisional answer man came up in the form of God -Spirit - Creator was not an actual filling of the answer to those question, but only an emphasis of the big How and Why questions. The actual development of a scientific outlook on nature provided various ways to make use of the forces of nature to fulfill man's real needs, has lead to an actual restating and practical filling of the questions man asked himself based on practical needs leading to new questions and new scientific investigations.

3. Man´s actual practicing of knowledge in society

Based on the development man already has no endpoint of man´s development can be conceived of. The historic account of man´s development into the modern society that practices science and utilizes knowledge allows us to state that man and his society has shifted the role of religion to that of materialism and science which has become the essential and exceptionally fruitfull part of the development of society and mankind.
That is the way in which human history, society and practice itself has provided the answer to the questions (the Big Why and How's) man had asked himself in which the knowledge man has developed about the forces of nature has lead to the development of various practical applications to that knowledge to fulfill man's real needs.

Netme

Aug15-03, 12:29 AM

Man kind will never be not objective. Basic understanding of our existential laws can prove that. For something to exist in our being it must be created by some other form of being. And since nothing can just appear think back to the first life forms ever created. Question such as who created it and why or what started the process cannot be denied. A higher form of being cannot be denied because of this. If we were non objective all these questions about our existence would already be known. I have nothing against Man's actual practicing of knowledge in society.

heusdens

Aug15-03, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Netme
Man kind will never be not objective. Basic understanding of our existential laws can prove that. For something to exist in our being it must be created by some other form of being. And since nothing can just appear think back to the first life forms ever created. Question such as who created it and why or what started the process cannot be denied. A higher form of being cannot be denied because of this. If we were non objective all these questions about our existence would already be known. I have nothing against Man's actual practicing of knowledge in society.

Mankind will indeed never arive at absolute objectivity or absolute knowledge. But we do progress in that way.

The universe, life and consciousness do not come from nothing, but were transformation from previous material forms.

A higher being should be denied, given the fact that it can not have any objective existence (see argument A).

Royce

Aug15-03, 08:24 AM

Marx was a paranoid schizophernic having a life long psychotic episode. Reminds me of the author of Revelations.

I agree that God is not an objective being. This is news?
God is a spiritual being that transcends objectiveity, created and creates the objective world and nature of himself, of his power. God is nature and nature is of God as is objectivity, just as we are of God and God of us.

God is the ultimate and true reality and his work, the material universe is the illusion. It is real and it exists; but, in respect to true reality it is an illusion. All who believe that only the material world exists and nothing else is real place their belief and existence in illusion and delusion. They then call theist deluded and believers in illusion.

If materialism is based on the works of Karl Marx, no wonder I have such a hard time with it. Talk about crackpots and not have any touch with reality. I find it incredable that anybody with any sense at all would give any credencs to Karl Marx in this day and age. Even Marvel Comics wouldn't touch him because he was too far out in left field thet he lost all touch with reality.

Tail

Aug15-03, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Mankind will indeed never arive at absolute objectivity or absolute knowledge. But we do progress in that way.

You've got me confused. Why would we be getting more objective? Even the meaning of "objective" has been created by ourselves! Computers cannot be objective because we invented them...

We cannot find any objective laws of nature because we get the information through our senses... a being with different senses would probably get other information...

"Objective" is impossible.

heusdens

Aug16-03, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Marx was a paranoid schizophernic having a life long psychotic episode. Reminds me of the author of Revelations.

Do you realy think so?

I agree that God is not an objective being. This is news?
God is a spiritual being that transcends objectiveity, created and creates the objective world and nature of himself, of his power. God is nature and nature is of God as is objectivity, just as we are of God and God of us.

God is the ultimate and true reality and his work, the material universe is the illusion. It is real and it exists; but, in respect to true reality it is an illusion. All who believe that only the material world exists and nothing else is real place their belief and existence in illusion and delusion. They then call theist deluded and believers in illusion.

It takes some alienated from of consciousness to say that an imagined being is the ultimate reality, and the material world is the illusion.

We live in a social reality. God is just a hypothetical being, without having objective existence. It is a projection of human consciousness on the material world itself.

If materialism is based on the works of Karl Marx, no wonder I have such a hard time with it. Talk about crackpots and not have any touch with reality. I find it incredable that anybody with any sense at all would give any credencs to Karl Marx in this day and age. Even Marvel Comics wouldn't touch him because he was too far out in left field thet he lost all touch with reality.

Materialism was alread a philosophical outlook that existed long before Marx. He only enriched it with historical materialism and (together with Friedrich Engels) dialectical-materialism.

heusdens

Aug16-03, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Tail
You've got me confused. Why would we be getting more objective? Even the meaning of "objective" has been created by ourselves! Computers cannot be objective because we invented them...

We cannot find any objective laws of nature because we get the information through our senses... a being with different senses would probably get other information...

"Objective" is impossible.

We are not limited by our own senses, since we can make every possible device for measuring things which we ourselves can not sense.

In that way I think your argument is senseless.

Devices are not subjective.

Netme

Aug16-03, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Mankind will indeed never arive at absolute objectivity or absolute knowledge. But we do progress in that way.

The universe, life and consciousness do not come from nothing, but were transformation from previous material forms.

A higher being should be denied, given the fact that it can not have any objective existence (see argument A).

You even say it yourself that mankind will never arive at absolute knowledge. Why do you think that is?

Even if we were transformations from a previous material form, what started the previous form? Once again your theory could only be explained by the forms just apppeared or just started from nothing.

This is why i believe a higher power is in existence.

heusdens

Aug17-03, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Netme
You even say it yourself that mankind will never arive at absolute knowledge. Why do you think that is?

That is because there is an infinite amount of things to know.
We can not predict with infinite precission the weather. Even when the weather process is a deterministic process in itself, we can not at any given moment know all the factors that are responsible for the weather phenomena. Etc.

Even if we were transformations from a previous material form, what started the previous form? Once again your theory could only be explained by the forms just apppeared or just started from nothing.

This is why i believe a higher power is in existence.

Wrong. A nothing is not a begin of anyting. There was always something instead of nothing. All of existence could not have started from nothing, which simply means that all of existence was already there, in some or other form.

Your escape into deities, is not and can not be an answer, since the same problem that is connected to the issue this deity needs to solve, is also connected to this deity itself: what started this deity? A higher deity? Etc.

All of existence already includes any existing deities that might exist. But how can a deity start all of existence if that a deity is already part of all of existence? Something can not start itself.

The only solution is therefore that all of existence has been there forever, in one form or another.

Since we only know about material existence, physical entities that exist, and it is acknowledged that matter/energy are conserved quantities, it follows that the physical universe has been there always in one or other form.

Tail

Aug17-03, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
We are not limited by our own senses, since we can make every possible device for measuring things which we ourselves can not sense.

In that way I think your argument is senseless.

Devices are not subjective.

1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.

2. Reality might be an illusion you're having.

heusdens

Aug17-03, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Tail
Reality might be an illusion you're having.

Maybe for you, not for me.

Lrdmora

Aug17-03, 12:19 PM

Twenty years from now a manned spaceship lands on Mars, walking out of the spaceship they notice something in the distance. They go over and see what looks like a computer. It has a harddrive, ram, cables, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. They turn it on and it works, the operating system is a varient of Unix. They sit in stunned silence for a while and then one man turns to the other and says, "Wow, think of the thousands of years it took to evolve!" If you were in that situation would you think that someone was there before you and left the computer? Or would you think that it just evolved?

The point is this, human beings are incredibly more complex than computers, one look at DNA is enough to convince anyone of that, and our operating system is incredible with very few people statistically having errors. The computer has evolved but not by itself, we made the changes. As we learn more or find new technologies we incorporate them into the computer.

Now humans may have created Gods through history giving them human attributes and character flaws, but that does not rule out the existance of a higher power. I have a firm belief that we were designed. Believing this does not mean that I have to believe in heaven and hell, or Jesus, Mohhamad, Budda, reincarnation or anything else. As a matter of fact B. Franklin was a confirmed deist as many of Americas founding fathers, scientists, and philosophers were.

I look at the deep field pictures from hubble, and cannot believe that it is all here by chance.

It is true that we mould our enviroment to our senses but that does not mean that the universal laws are not true. I believe for the most part that common sense holds the key, if you go to mars and there is a computer there, common sense says that someone somewhere put it there. The more complex a solution to a problem the more ways for it to go wrong.

Tail

Aug17-03, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Maybe for you, not for me.
Prove it?

You cannot. Nobody can. And you cannot know either... you can just believe the age-old "I think therefore I am"...

heusdens

Aug17-03, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Tail
Prove it?

You cannot. Nobody can. And you cannot know either... you can just believe the age-old "I think therefore I am"...

Has it ever occured to you that you would need a proof?

I mean, what reason do you have for doubt?

Netme

Aug17-03, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Lrdmora
Twenty years from now a manned spaceship lands on Mars, walking out of the spaceship they notice something in the distance. They go over and see what looks like a computer. It has a harddrive, ram, cables, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. They turn it on and it works, the operating system is a varient of Unix. They sit in stunned silence for a while and then one man turns to the other and says, "Wow, think of the thousands of years it took to evolve!" If you were in that situation would you think that someone was there before you and left the computer? Or would you think that it just evolved?

The point is this, human beings are incredibly more complex than computers, one look at DNA is enough to convince anyone of that, and our operating system is incredible with very few people statistically having errors. The computer has evolved but not by itself, we made the changes. As we learn more or find new technologies we incorporate them into the computer.

Now humans may have created Gods through history giving them human attributes and character flaws, but that does not rule out the existance of a higher power. I have a firm belief that we were designed. Believing this does not mean that I have to believe in heaven and hell, or Jesus, Mohhamad, Budda, reincarnation or anything else. As a matter of fact B. Franklin was a confirmed deist as many of Americas founding fathers, scientists, and philosophers were.

I look at the deep field pictures from hubble, and cannot believe that it is all here by chance.

It is true that we mould our enviroment to our senses but that does not mean that the universal laws are not true. I believe for the most part that common sense holds the key, if you go to mars and there is a computer there, common sense says that someone somewhere put it there. The more complex a solution to a problem the more ways for it to go wrong.
Basically a smarter version of what ive been trying to say.

Netme

Aug17-03, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by heusdens

That is because there is an infinite amount of things to know.
We can not predict with infinite precission the weather. Even when the weather process is a deterministic process in itself, we can not at any given moment know all the factors that are responsible for the weather phenomena. Etc.

Wrong. A nothing is not a begin of anyting. There was always something instead of nothing. All of existence could not have started from nothing, which simply means that all of existence was already there, in some or other form.

Your escape into deities, is not and can not be an answer, since the same problem that is connected to the issue this deity needs to solve, is also connected to this deity itself: what started this deity? A higher deity? Etc.

All of existence already includes any existing deities that might exist. But how can a deity start all of existence if that a deity is already part of all of existence? Something can not start itself.

The only solution is therefore that all of existence has been there forever, in one form or another.

Since we only know about material existence, physical entities that exist, and it is acknowledged that matter/energy are conserved quantities, it follows that the physical universe has been there always in one or other form. [/B]

Once again you cannot answer my question.. How can existence just already be there? The reason why you cannot answer this is because there are no answers. Its much like a trick question that you must answer correctly in order to prove your theory is true. The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

Tail

Aug17-03, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Has it ever occured to you that you would need a proof?

I mean, what reason do you have for doubt?
Doubting everything is why there are always great truths in science - and why they always are different from those before.

FZ+

Aug17-03, 07:25 PM

The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.
And yet you are at a loss to explain what gave this being existence itself. In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

How can the existence already be there? How can it not already be there, when there are no laws, no reason to deny it's existence? See what worthless speculation about non-existence brings?

Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence. By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

That is the central fallacy of the design argument.

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

BoulderHead

Aug17-03, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Netme
The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.
But this solves nothing at all;

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.
-- Dan Barker

Netme

Aug17-03, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
And yet you are at a loss to explain what gave this being existence itself. In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

How can the existence already be there? How can it not already be there, when there are no laws, no reason to deny it's existence? See what worthless speculation about non-existence brings?

Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence. By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

That is the central fallacy of the design argument.

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?
If we are the creation of a higher power what makes our creator have to exist by our existential rules? Whose to say that existence even applies to our creator? If you were to create a computer you would have to design certain rules for how it would operate(exist) but you would not have to operate by those same rules yourself. But how you choose to make your computer operate must be able to function using the general rules of physics. So we are not at a dead end by theorizing a higher power. The more we know about our physics the more we will know how our creator functions.

Lrdmora

Aug17-03, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence.

Does a computer know that it has a purpose? Just because you can't pin down your purpose doesn't mean that you don't have one. After all would you argue with me if I said that a star has a purpose? There are many things in science that we do not understand, but I have yet to her a scientist say that just because we don't understand it, it has no purpose. So I find your argument invalid, it would be more accurate to say that humans have not found their purpose.

Originally posted by FZ+

By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

1. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell that someone with mental problems is not normal, so I do believe that there is something to judge by; the norm. Don't let yourself be so caught up with intellectual theory that you ignore the obvious. If someone came up to you on the street having hallucinations you wouldn't say that he could be normal because you don't have a "perfect human" to judge by.

2. I don't recall ever saying that "God" exists, I said that I believe that we are designed. You can draw your own conclusions from there. And as far as "Magically" I have found many people who "Magically" believe in the Big Bang when no such proof exists. There are many theories that cannot be proven yet, but I do not emphatically believe that they are wrong. I take a step back and wait to see. (You seem to have a flair for words though, ". . .dust in the wind. . . etc.)[;)]

Originally posted by FZ+

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

I think I can say that mankind has a universally special element; intelligence. The last time I checked we are the only ones around with self consciousness. When was the last time you saw a chance arguing about the existance of a higher power? The mere fact that you have the facalties of reason and free will proves this. I think that I have already taken care of your "Design" argument, is just isn't accurate.

Originally posted by FZ+

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

I will admit that there is a certain randomness in the universe, but your argument about a snowflake, etc., doesn't hold. There is a rigid structure behind electrical storms, (positive and negitive charges) and while the outcome (where lightning strikes) is random, the reasons behind the lightning are not. The same with stars, but nice try.

I certainly enjoyed the discussion though, it is not good to be to rigid in thinking, the whole reason Einstien didn't discover the flaws in his theories was because he could not believe that "God plays dice with the universe".

Remember that the more exotic the theory to explain something, the more areas there are for flaws. Common sense and simplicity are the cornerstones of good thinking.

Royce

Aug18-03, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But this solves nothing at all;

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.
-- Dan Barker

Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause? If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?

How is your uncaused cause any more likly, scientific, logical or reasonable than the theistic uncaused cause.

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable. That statement in it's self is absurd and self contradictory. If one first or uncaused cause is absurd then they all are. Take your choice. They are all absurd or they are all reasonable. Either way they no longe have any point to make in any discussion of theism vs objectivism.

FZ+

Aug18-03, 07:00 PM

If we are the creation of a higher power what makes our creator have to exist by our existential rules? Whose to say that existence even applies to our creator?
What makes you say our universe itself obeys existential rules? Why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself? To use the computer analogy, why would you say that the hardware of the computer obeys the same laws as the software within it?

I am not saying that to say a god exists in "wrong", by this idea, but it is no proof. It is simply a transferral of the assumption that something can exist without or intuiative laws from one entity to another.

Just because you can't pin down your purpose doesn't mean that you don't have one.
That is precisely true, and that's why you are wrong in trying to use this as a reason for the belief in god. What you are attempting to say is that A is true because you don't know if A is true or false. This is of course an incorrect argument. What you have acheive is a production of possibility - a self-consistent argument indeed, but one without that crucial link to what we know. You see, I did not say humans do not have a purpose - I said that we cannot know it. And hence the design argument fails to get started.

You cannot begin an argument on the unknown, only recognise the indeterminacy. Do you see?

1. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell that someone with mental problems is not normal, so I do believe that there is something to judge by; the norm. Don't let yourself be so caught up with intellectual theory that you ignore the obvious. If someone came up to you on the street having hallucinations you wouldn't say that he could be normal because you don't have a "perfect human" to judge by.
But such a rocket scientist world be wrong. For the normal you speak of is not the same as perfection. If all the world's men were struck down with disease, then corpses would be the norm, but hardly perfection. If we keep a child in isolation all it's life, we would have one "pure" from influences, but also abnormal and imperfect. If we cast the range of our survey back fifty years, a hundred years, a millennia, we will not find a "norm" that people settle to, but a moving average that you can only find as you go along. Which is perfection?

Perfection is a judgement on values, on what the observer holds dear. His child may, for example, be "perfect". But it does not make sense to talk of universal perfection, of few errors, if you have not established that an universal, known purpose exists.

2. I don't recall ever saying that "God" exists, I said that I believe that we are designed. You can draw your own conclusions from there. And as far as "Magically" I have found many people who "Magically" believe in the Big Bang when no such proof exists. There are many theories that cannot be proven yet, but I do not emphatically believe that they are wrong. I take a step back and wait to see. (You seem to have a flair for words though, ". . .dust in the wind. . . etc.)
You miss the point. To say that a designer exists both presumes on the existence of God and implies the existence of God. What you said about the computer, and all, pivot precisely on this point. And I am saying that drawing anything from what is effective a circular argument is inconclusive. It is a consistent belief system, but only a belief system. (also, much proof does exist for the big bang, but thanks for the flattery.)

I think I can say that mankind has a universally special element; intelligence. The last time I checked we are the only ones around with self consciousness. When was the last time you saw a chance arguing about the existance of a higher power? The mere fact that you have the facalties of reason and free will proves this. I think that I have already taken care of your "Design" argument, is just isn't accurate.
... Fallen into my carefully rigged trap, I see.[g)]

What is intelligence? Can you prove that anyone other than yourself is intelligent? Can you prove to me that you are intelligent, and not an engine listing set statements? You cannot, except through the exhibition of communication. In reality, our sole concept of intelligence is that of a relative thing, of something behaving in a way that is similar to us. We do not consider the rest of animal kind intelligent because they don't look like us, and don't talk like us. This says nothing about that which is universally special, but of the egotistical element of the human brain, and the judgement of all others relative to itself.

And free will? What free will?
In each moment, you are constrained by both the hardware of your brain, and by the software of your memory only through which the past, and thus the present has meaning. Can you show any freedom in there, and make it truely different from say the freedom of an electron in it's charge cloud?

When was the last time I saw chance arguing for a higher power? Probably when I read your post. [;)]

I will admit that there is a certain randomness in the universe, but your argument about a snowflake, etc., doesn't hold. There is a rigid structure behind electrical storms, (positive and negitive charges) and while the outcome (where lightning strikes) is random, the reasons behind the lightning are not. The same with stars, but nice try.
It isn't? *Flexes QM fingers*

The funny thing is, all of this, the storms, the snowflake, where does it come from? The Sun. More specifically, the fusion reactions inside it.

If we measure the sun, we find an interesting fact - the particles in the Sun do not have ENOUGH ENERGY to fuse. If we plot the known potential well for it, it seems the sun should be dark, and we should be dead. The gap is in the thing called quantum tunnelling. At certain times, the particles have a probability to borrow energy that lets them fuse, or do whatever. And this process is entirely random. Not just unpredictable, but utterly acausal and random (Royce, does that make hydrogen god? [;)]) So we come to the conclusion that the driving force behind the entire universe is random action! And that includes the weather, stars, and petty things like brains.

But there's more. Do you know about chaos theory? Chaos theory says that the actual structure of the universe, though determinist, shows precisely the element of ordered randomness that we call chance. By chaotic rules, order is something that naturally comes out of chaos, and chaos is something that derives from order. And this takes me to the classic example, the electrical storm. Though the forces on the storm are, effectively random, and you can never predict for any length of time the behaviour of the storm, we notice that still it follows trends. This is because the chaos still follows laws, and the randomness still puts itself into the same quality of behaviour. Even though your inputs are almost completely random, you can tell what a lightning bolt would effectively be shaped like a lightning bolt.
What makes these electrical storms interesting is that they in fact form a close analogy of the flow of ions and currents in the human brain. Order from chaos.

That is the real way randomness acts in the real world - a combination of absolute randomness from Quantum Uncertainty, and the determinist chaos that creates.. well... everything.

If your perceive chance as something that only destroys, that cannot create new ordered system, then very little of such chance exists. You don't actually know what chance is.

I certainly enjoyed the discussion though, it is not good to be to rigid in thinking, the whole reason Einstien didn't discover the flaws in his theories was because he could not believe that "God plays dice with the universe".
Einstein's God was Spinoza's god. A god that is simply a manifestation of his belief in the inherent order and sensibleness of the universe. His real mistake was to believe that common sense and simplicity are good foundations for thinking, instead of realising that the only foundations are what we can see. He did not realise how the dice do exist, but are more beautiful than he imagined.

Never underestimate "chance".

Royce:
Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause? If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?
Yes, but that is not god.

EDIT: Wow... what a long post...

It is highly recommended NOT to quote it when replying.

Lrdmora

Aug18-03, 07:10 PM

You've brought a smile to my face and made me crack up! (especialy that bit about common sense and simplicity) I am being serious not sarcastic! Give me a while and I will reply.

[:D]

By the way don't mistake conjecture for proof! There was plenty of proof that the earth was flat too!

BoulderHead

Aug18-03, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause?
Not the one I attended. It followed a lot of heavy drinking and pill swallowing. [:D]
If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?
How is your uncaused cause any more likly, scientific, logical or reasonable than the theistic uncaused cause.
It doesn’t jump to an assumption involving god, let alone all the rest that follows when people start thinking in those terms.
I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable.
I haven’t made that claim this week nor do I pretend to know what caused this existence. You, however, have made the claim that God is a spiritual being…
So, you not only know there is a God, but you even know what kind of an entity it is. What is more absurd, really, my admission of ignorance or what you have claimed?
… If one first or uncaused cause is absurd then they all are. Take your choice. They are all absurd or they are all reasonable...
I think some are clearly more absurd than others, but if you’re willing to agree with me that they are all absurd would you agree to never utter the word ‘god’ again?

I don’t believe you will.

Netme

Aug18-03, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
What makes you say our universe itself obeys existential rules? Why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself? To use the computer analogy, why would you say that the hardware of the computer obeys the same laws as the software within it?

Everything in our universe follows exestential rule. Nothing can be formed without something to form it. Nothing can just appear or dissapear. What do you mean by why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself?
The hardware must obey the same laws as the software within it because they were both made in our existence . Im saying that the creator of the computer must be able to function with the same physics as the computer. In this situation we would be the higher power and the computer our creation. Wouldnt you say that a computer has a kind of mind? Some might say but a computer does not have free will. what is free will?
Even today we have computer programs able to choose which operations would be most beneficial as to what the desired solution is. Again some may say that the computer is programed to act that way and cannot make decisions on its own. What if the computer were programed to randomly choose which operation it would take whether it be beneficial or not. Wouldnt that be free will? Our free will is nothing more than a choice of action from a list of possible actions.

Iacchus32

Aug18-03, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star? None of these things come about by chance. They come about via the principle laws of physics. And can only come about when certain "preconditions" are met. This, I would hardly call chance. [;)]

FZ+

Aug18-03, 08:22 PM

Iacchus:
Though that doesn't account for the quantum examples.

Ignoring that, by that description, as chance being that which is without law, chance does not exist.
Bye bye free will!

Netme:
The hardware must obey the same laws as the software within it because they were both made in our existence .

I've tried, but I was never able to "delete" my monitor, or run it through a virus checker.
Observe here the severe difference between that which is the medium on which in information (objects) is written, and the information within.

Im saying that the creator of the computer must be able to function with the same physics as the computer.
I am saying that unlike the software, the computer has a CPU, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, a floppy drive... I am saying that by the same justification you used to give your God exemption from existential laws, I can give the fabric of the universe the same powers.

As for the free will thing, wasn't that exactly what I suggested to defeat the idea of the specialness of mankind?

Lrdmora

Aug18-03, 08:45 PM

Netme

Aug18-03, 08:47 PM

Iacchus32

Aug18-03, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Iacchus:
Though that doesn't account for the quantum examples.

Ignoring that, by that description, as chance being that which is without law, chance does not exist.
Bye bye free will!Bye bye the laws of physics too? ... Bye bye the PhysicsForums.Com? ... Bye bye FZ+? ... Bye Bye Iacchus32? ... Bye bye an "objective reality?" ... Bye bye the "materialist philosophy?" ... Bye bye the whole physical universe? ... Now let me know when to stop?

I think all this does is indicate that there is nothing but the design element involved. While you materialists keep saying you can't have a cause without an effect, so what's that got to do with chance? Are you now saying that you don't believe in predeterminism?

Or, is it entirely possible that free will and determinism are correlative? Meaning, you can't have freedom without the "potential" for slavery.

Royce

Aug19-03, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead

It doesn’t jump to an assumption involving god, let alone all the rest that follows when people start thinking in those terms.

I haven’t made that claim this week nor do I pretend to know what caused this existence. You, however, have made the claim that God is a spiritual being…
So, you not only know there is a God, but you even know what kind of an entity it is. What is more absurd, really, my admission of ignorance or what you have claimed?

I think some are clearly more absurd than others, but if you’re willing to agree with me that they are all absurd would you agree to never utter the word ‘god’ again?

I don’t believe you will.

You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
If I say God created the universe, the reply most often heard is Okay who or what created God, the first cause argument.
My point is that such a reply is nonsense and inconsistant with any materialist view. If the universe could have always been or came about randomly or spontainiously the the same could be said for a creator. I do not dispute spontanious or random uncaused events. I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

FZ+, No hydrogen is just a commoner like us. Tritium is god and duterium is his son.

Zero

Aug19-03, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Royce
You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
If I say God created the universe, the reply most often heard is Okay who or what created God, the first cause argument.
My point is that such a reply is nonsense and inconsistant with any materialist view. If the universe could have always been or came about randomly or spontainiously the the same could be said for a creator. I do not dispute spontanious or random uncaused events. I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

FZ+, No hydrogen is just a commoner like us. Tritium is god and duterium is his son.

Obviously, neither side can use those arguments. IS there an argument for teh existance of nonexistant things? DId I miss it somewhere in this thread?

BoulderHead

Aug19-03, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Royce
You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
There is no misunderstanding on my part that I’m aware of. You provided your thinking clearly enough when you said;
I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable.
Perhaps you missed the reason for my original post, because there is a difference between pointing out to Netme that his/her thinking had a hole in it, and making a claim for the validity of some other assertion.

Royce

Aug19-03, 12:01 PM

BH, I was replying to both your post and FZ+ post. You both seemed to be using the first cause or uncaused cause argument. This has been bouncing around in my head for some time. It is an invalid argument in my opinion despite the fact that it has been around for hundreds of years. I think it is piontless for either 'side' to bring up and you were right to call netme on it.
In light of BB models and QM it makes it even more pointless as both 'sides' can point to spontainious, random, uncaused events which prove nothing except that they do happen.

Zero, I was going to tell you to try to keep up but I see that that too would apply to me as well. now your saying that the universe doesn't exist either?

All I can say is ;"Nevermind" ala Rosanna Rosanna Danna.

FZ+

Aug19-03, 07:34 PM

1. It is very possible that you have me on the QM because I do not know that much about Quantum Mechanics. (I will look into it a little closer thanks to you!) I do have one point here though, just because it is random, or chance for you my friend, doesn't mean it can't be designed. Dice are random and get more random with the amount of dice or sides, but I am pretty sure that they are designed and sold. Vegas would go out of business without them. I could be wrong but I think that you can engineer chance.
Good to infect another person with the craziness that is QM. Yes, it's true that randomness can be designed. Maybe, at least, though how is waaay outside my imagination. But just to point out that random processes can indeed generate apparent order, and dare I say it, beauty.

2. I never said that humans were perfect, what I said was there are very few operating system errors (statistically). Windows OS is not perfect yet I can still tell when it has the BSOD! (Bill Gates may fit the definition of a blind parent who thinks his creation is perfect, but he is the only one!) So if I can tell when my computer has errors I must be able to tell when it is operating nominally (Maybe that is a better word than norm).
I am saying it from the other way round. I am saying that it is impossible to make a statement on whether there are errors or not, until you have established a constant, absolute scale of normalcy. Ie. everything we do can be an error from perfection which we call madness. Ever heard of the idea of the "divine fool"? What I am advocating is that we are neither one or the other - we just are, and normal etc are subjective things we apply.

3. I don't follow you completely on the purpose paragraph, but as far as I can tell just because you cannot tell you have purpose (indeterminacy) does not mean there is no design.
Ok, let's curtail my linguistic brilliance. [;)] Sacre bleu!
What I mean is that we don't know.

I do waffle a bit, don't I? [:)]

4. Your statement on intelligence I will leave alone because it is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard. Mumbo Jumbo, Ivory tower intellecualism, and of course impossible to argue against because it actually means nothing. Prove that a bean isn't intelligent, wait! How can you know it isn't intelligent? You are using your subjective reality to classify it, maybe, in its own beany way it is as intelligent as you or I. I doubt I will be seeing beans flying to the moon anytime soon. But, that is your argument, such as it is.

Heh. Hey, I thought I was making an intellectualist statement on the state of the whole intelligence/free will debate! Honestly...

Brief summary: It is far from settled if intelligence exists objectively, or that free will even exists. In any case, I believe what I see points to the idea that life, intelligence et al are special to us, but not special to the universe, and that free will, if it exists, may simply be the same as a flood of unpredictability in the position and momentum of a single electron. We only find it special, because we are it.

5. The Big Bang. I happen to believe in the Big Bang but do not think that it has been proven yet. Red shift and background cosmic radiation are good starts and I think it has been argued effectivly but not neccessarily proven.
It all rests on what you mean by neccessarily proven, of course. By many definitions of such proven, such proof does not exist except in the case of tautologies. (Ie. if 1 +1 = 2, then 1 + 1 = 2)

If absolute proof was issued tomorrow that God does not exist and neither does the Big Bang, a majority of people on both sides would still believe.
My personal opinion is to run away from that shouting "absolute proof does not exist!" But you may be right.

6. Your bit about common sense and simplicity made me smile, I doubt many people would see it your way. But gave me a chuckle, after all we are all entitled to our opinions, at least in free countries.
Wait till you read on QM... hehehe...

I guess the conclusion is this, most people believe what they believe and they shape their world according to their beliefs.
Very true. In fact, I said that myself some long long time ago... (I'll fetch the copyright yet!!)

Iachuss:
I think all this does is indicate that there is nothing but the design element involved.
Er no... What this means is that there is nothing but the determinism involved (except that is probably also a fat lie considering QM) Read my argument again for why you cannot straightforwardly convert determinism to design.

And my actual point is that you cheated by defining as non-chance everything that follows physical laws, thus simultaneous making you entire use of design, chance etc utterly meaningless. You can no longer use design to prove pre-determinism in that way because you have changed the idea of design.

Perhaps you might now return to the idea of chance as systems co-inciding on certain modes of behaviour without a specific intention to do so? Then actually what you said actually means something?

Let's go through this again. Determinism says that things follow by a string of causes and effect.

Design says things follow by a string of causes and effect with a PURPOSE.

Can you spot the difference between the two?

Or, is it entirely possible that free will and determinism are correlative?
You really haven't been reading my posts, have you?

Determinism says that free will is just slavery dressed up in a neat wrapper, clouded by chaotic unpredictability.

Pseudodeterminism says that rules exist which are not absolute, allowing free will and uncertainty to possibly slip in somewhere.

Non-determinism says that everything is due to the interaction of "free wills", and nothing is real, all is made by perception.

Royce:
I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.
Ah I see. Yes, that's what I said as well - that the first cause is not an argument but a passing of responsibility. Sorry for misunderstanding.

In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.
Though excuse my comment that a materialist first cause is easier to study, and if neccessary, disprove.

heusdens

Aug19-03, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.

Appearently not, since they do not just exist in our imagination, but exist in real material forms.

hypnagogue

Aug20-03, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by heusdens

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearently not, since they do not just exist in our imagination, but exist in real material forms.

You're missing the point. The proof is rather simple here. All knowledge we have about the world, we acquire through our senses. Sensual knowledge is subjective knowledge. Therefore, all of our knowledge is subjective. The fact that subjective knowledge across a wide range of people is consistent merely suggests an underlying, objective existence, but this objective world cannot be verified, for the same reasons that God cannot be verified. Logically, it is simply impossible to know for sure whether or not an objective world of the nature you describe exists or not.

The fact that we can build devices to detect information beyond our senses (infra red radiation for instance) does not bypass this argument. If you make infra red detecting goggles, the goggles detect information invisible to your senses, and then transform it into information your senses can detect. All knowledge necessarily must pass through the subjective filter of the perceiver; all knowledge is subjective.

Fliption

Aug21-03, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Obviously, neither side can use those arguments. IS there an argument for teh existance of nonexistant things? DId I miss it somewhere in this thread?

LOl. Well if it were really here Zero, you would definitely miss it.[;)]

Fliption

Aug21-03, 06:41 PM

As far as the first cause discussion goes, I find it all very silly. To make any conclusions either way on this line of discussion seems premature and a bit ridiculous. Cause and effect is dependent on the existence of time. Time. The thing that no one truly understands the exact nature of. A dimension that very well could be an illusion according to the cover story of Scientific American.

Debating on first cause just seems presumptious and like a waste of time to me.

FZ

As for the rest of the discussion I have a question for FZ. FZ, are you seriously saying that you can think of no object that, even though you did not know its purpose, you still would think that some being designed it? Forget the computer example. What if you were on Mars and saw another contraption? A contraption that looked like it was a compilation of parts, made of metal, enclosed in a smooth square case? You seriously would say that chance did this?

I would think the rational person's thought would go something like this:

1. I have no idea what this is. It's possible that these things just arranged themselves in this way by chance.

2. But this case is a perfect square made of metal. Because I have never seen nature actually do this, I know that the odds of this are rare.

3. I suspect someone built this for some reason

4. Now I just need to figure out why they built it. I wonder what it does?

I understand that odds don't prove anything. But I don't think they should be ignored either. I think in our mode of inquiry about nature, the odds just might tell us something. They just might influence the direction of our research.

I was under the impression that we do this in archeology and history for sure. I'm thinking there are "structures" that we claim were built by man even though we aren't sure why they were built or what they were used for. It seems part of the reason for this, is that we can tell when something looks "unnatural" or unlikely to have been done by chance.

I don't understand why this wouldn't apply in this case too. ????

FZ+

Aug21-03, 07:14 PM

2. But this case is a perfect square made of metal. Because I have never seen nature actually do this, I know that the odds of this are rare.
But I don't think it is right.

A baby wakes up. He looks at a rock say, and he says I have never seen nature do this, so the odds are rare. And therefore concludes the rock was designed.

In effect, you are using limited knowledge to make a judgement on odds as something you consider objective.

But look at it this way, there is another conclusion that can be made from this.

This is a single case, and so it can just be an anomaly. A case of luck.

Or, if multiple cases are found, it can be concluded that:

See, the odds of it occuring by chance aren't that small after all, as the phenomenon has repeated naturally several time.

You see, the way we pick one of these is based on our subjective feelings. ie. it's a lot easier to talk about a piece of metal since it reflects our human society. Instead, if you find a piece of wood a queer shape, though it may be true that this shape is unlikely to be repeated, your mental connection of wood and nature disturbs this line of thought.

Our sense of the "unnatural" is in the material sense based on what we experienced, and so is not capable as a judge, especially when we claim a non-human designer. It is almost reliable in the case of structures (almost as cases such as finding faces in mountains, or things like Giants Causeway) because we understand the psychology of mankind, and assume that the designers are human and share our ways of action, and thought.

So all in all, I am saying it is impossible to make such objective judgements of design with our subjective perception.

Hence, back to the box. I seriously would say I don't know, and that chance may or may not have done this. It is up to other evidence, such as context etc to establish if such a designer exists, and hence if the object is designed or just a lucky fluke.

heusdens

Aug21-03, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Netme
Once again you cannot answer my question.. How can existence just already be there? The reason why you cannot answer this is because there are no answers. Its much like a trick question that you must answer correctly in order to prove your theory is true. The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

Existence is there, cause if it wasn't there already, it would never come about, and it obviously has.

But please read this text of Hegel, it will probably explain some more on this:

"Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

§ 170

What has been said indicates the nature of the dialectic against the beginning of the world and also its end, by which the eternity of matter was supposed to be proved, that is, the dialectic against becoming, coming-to-be or ceasing-to-be, in general. The Kantian antinomy relative to the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time will be considered more closely under the Notion of quantitative infinity. This simple, ordinary dialectic rests on holding fast to the opposition of being and nothing. It is proved in the following manner that a beginning of the world, or of anything, is impossible:

§ 171

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.

§ 172

It is obvious that in this proof nothing is brought forward against becoming, or beginning and ceasing, against this unity of being and nothing, except an assertoric denial of them and an ascription of truth to being and nothing, each in separation from the other. Nevertheless this dialectic is at least more consistent than ordinary reflective thought which accepts as perfect truth that being and nothing only are in separation from each other, yet on the other hand acknowledges beginning and ceasing to be equally genuine determinations; but in these it does in fact assume the unseparatedness of being and nothing.

§ 173

With the absolute separateness of being from nothing presupposed, then of course — as we so often hear — beginning or becoming is something incomprehensible; for a presupposition is made which annuls the beginning or the becoming which yet is again admitted, and this contradiction thus posed and at the same time made impossible of solution, is called incomprehensible.

§ 174

The foregoing dialectic is the same, too, as that which understanding employs the notion of infinitesimal magnitudes, given by higher analysis. A more detailed treatment of this notion will be given later. These magnitudes have been defined as such that they are in their vanishing, not before their vanishing, for then they are finite magnitudes, or after their vanishing, for then they are nothing. Against this pre notion it is objected and reiterated that such magnitudes are either something or nothing; that there is no intermediate state between being and non-being ('state' is here an unsuitable, barbarous expression). Here too, the absolute separation of being and nothing is assumed. But against this it has been shown that being and nothing are, in fact, the same, or to use the same language as that just quoted, that there is nothing which is not an intermediate state between being and nothing. It is to the adoption of the said determination, which understanding opposes, that mathematics owes its most brilliant successes.

§ 175

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth."

Hegel: Science of Logic

heusdens

Aug21-03, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You're missing the point. The proof is rather simple here. All knowledge we have about the world, we acquire through our senses. Sensual knowledge is subjective knowledge. Therefore, all of our knowledge is subjective. The fact that subjective knowledge across a wide range of people is consistent merely suggests an underlying, objective existence, but this objective world cannot be verified, for the same reasons that God cannot be verified. Logically, it is simply impossible to know for sure whether or not an objective world of the nature you describe exists or not.

The fact that we can build devices to detect information beyond our senses (infra red radiation for instance) does not bypass this argument. If you make infra red detecting goggles, the goggles detect information invisible to your senses, and then transform it into information your senses can detect. All knowledge necessarily must pass through the subjective filter of the perceiver; all knowledge is subjective.

Do you assume then in last instance that no objective world exists or has to exist?

Or in other words, are you arguing here for the position of Solipsism?

Want a rebutal of Solipsism?

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 11:22 PM

From the thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4758&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

Originally posted by megashawn
Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own?No, I'm saying just the opposite! I'm saying that unless we can acknowledge things for ourselves, and "truly know," through the faculty of being conscious -- the very thing which "defines" existence itself -- and I don't mean science -- then that's all we would be capable of doing, repeating what someone else has told us. I would recommend reading Zero's thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4537&perpage=15&pagenumber=17) for a little more clarity on this. [;)]

Fliption

Aug21-03, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]
A baby wakes up. He looks at a rock say, and he says I have never seen nature do this, so the odds are rare. And therefore concludes the rock was designed.

This is like claiming that a properly done statistical study has no more credibility than another study with a sample of one. Or better yet, a sample of zero because a baby knows practically nothing. I do understand the point was to show that we have limited knowledge that may be comparable to an infant in the scheme of things. But if this is your argument then how do we "know" anything? All our knowledge comes from subjective experience. How many experiments does it take to make a theory credible? This is a bit of a stretch given the specific example that I proposed.

In effect, you are using limited knowledge to make a judgement on odds as something you consider objective.

I understand this. But you have 2 choices: 1) actually use your experience to leave open the possibility for research into many explanations or 2)ignore your experiences no matter how absurd it may appear to do so and just assume "chance did it" and move on to the next question.

I don't think anyone does number 2; especially not science. Number 2 only comes up when the "design" topic comes up.

But look at it this way, there is another conclusion that can be made from this.

Or, if multiple cases are found, it can be concluded that:

See, the odds of it occuring by chance aren't that small after all, as the phenomenon has repeated naturally several time.

In my example there wasn't multiple instances; there was only one. And yes it could be luck but that's the whole point. You have to weigh the odds of luck against the more likely scenario(in this case) that someone put it there.

You see, the way we pick one of these is based on our subjective feelings. ie. it's a lot easier to talk about a piece of metal since it reflects our human society. Instead, if you find a piece of wood a queer shape, though it may be true that this shape is unlikely to be repeated, your mental connection of wood and nature disturbs this line of thought.

Well, I remember actually using wood in an example in another thread similar to this one. What if you were walking in the woods and saw little sticks of wood on the ground forming the shape of a perfect circle. You are saying that you would assume they fell out of the tree forming a perfect circle by chance simply because you don't know why someone would build a circle with sticks. (And I don't think anyone really believes that you would actually think that.)

So all in all, I am saying it is impossible to make such objective judgements of design with our subjective perception.

Just so you're clear, I agree with what you're saying. But if you read this quote above you'll see that your statement applies to everything. We can't arrive at objective judgements on anything no matter what we do. All information is subjective. Surely you won't deny that we use our experience from studies/experiments to gain an understanding of nature? Just as I asked above...How many experiments does it take for a theory to become credible? Likewise, how old does a human have to be to claim that a circle of sticks is not natural? or that a rock is not designed? It's a judgement call, but we do it all the time. We have to, because it is all we can do. But no one will put an infant in charge of the laboratory.

Hence, back to the box. I seriously would say I don't know, and that chance may or may not have done this. It is up to other evidence, such as context etc to establish if such a designer exists, and hence if the object is designed or just a lucky fluke.

I love the phrase "I don't know". And I agree with it's use in this case. Don't misunderstand me. I agree that odds cannot be used to conclude anything. My only point is that based on your experience, the odds of such an occurance ought to influence the options for investigation into the object.

FZ+

Aug22-03, 06:17 AM

But if this is your argument then how do we "know" anything? All our knowledge comes from subjective experience.
True, but I am saying that in this case we are making a judgement as to something nature CAN'T do. To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature, and so we can make statistics that way. I am saying that this is not very credible as an assumption, since obviously this metal object presents something new to us, and so instead of running with the assumption, we can alternatively consider it as disproving the assumption.

Remember the quote? "When an eminent scientist says something is possible, he is usually correct. When he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."

In the case of the mars object, this is more reasonable, this particular argument is more credible, as there is indeed alot of mars we don't know. The point is in effect you are making a judgement from lack of knowledge, which paradoxically requires that you already know how much of "everything" you know, which you can't. And deciding instead that this is just another "natural" thing you don't know is very constructive, and is in fact used in science.

In my example there wasn't multiple instances; there was only one. And yes it could be luck but that's the whole point. You have to weigh the odds of luck against the more likely scenario(in this case) that someone put it there
My point is that seen from a different direction, this is a no win situation. On one hand, we judge that this even is statistically insignificant, and so can be simply a fluke and on the other we consider it to be statistically significant, but then just representing a gap in knowledge.

Tackling this case, it is indeed inevitable that unlikely and new things do happen, as the category of things we consider low odds is very broad, and we don't have any specific thing we are looking for. We could make a judgement on odds if we had a set criteria that this matched, but in such cases we observe that there is an infinite number of things that have low but existent probability, and recognise that some of them, against all odds will happen. In effect, what I am saying is that if we look at this case in isolation, it is unusual. But if we consider this as one of a multitude of possibilities that we would have considered unusual if it occured, then the significant disappears.

The analogy is that of the dropped pen. The chance is near zero that a specific position results. But the probability is almost 1 when we consider all the possible positions with a probability of near zero.

You are saying that you would assume they fell out of the tree forming a perfect circle by chance simply because you don't know why someone would build a circle with sticks.
No. The trouble is not quite in the making, but in the observing. I am saying that you can almost guess reliably this case because you noticed it, and can assume that it was made by a human who notices it too. If you had never encountered a circle in your life, you would consider this (still unlikely thing) to be deeply insignificant. You would never guess, for example, that a scar on a piece of wood was made by a wolf on purpose, unless you have a keen knowledge of the behaviour of wolves. In this case, you must be empathising with the creator to a way, and this relies on the assumption that you can. Which rapidly falls as we talk about non-human intelligences.

We can't arrive at objective judgements on anything no matter what we do.
True! We can only say that our subjective knowledge approachs objective truth. But Design (in capitals), and some other ideas are inherently absolute concepts, where we presume them to be outside human experience. And as we cannot say whether purpose can be absolute, there is no way to test the subjective knowledge objectively to say that it approaches objective truth.
In effect, we are making a value judgement, and saying that this value judgement reflects an objective component of the universe. We need something to let us make this leap.

How many experiments does it take for a theory to become credible?
One difference is that science relies on alternatives, and so relative truth values. Another is the lack of objective ways of testing. Finally, unlike an experiment, the concept of universal design relies on verifying the existence of outside the standard, which is not possible until the standard can be truely quantified.

What it means is instead "how many experiments does it take for an event to become INcredible?" And that, depending on your initial stance to the question, is either 1, or infinite.

Fliption

Aug22-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
True, but I am saying that in this case we are making a judgement as to something nature CAN'T do. To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature, and so we can make statistics that way.

Do you believe that I can levitate things? I would suspect you don't believe this at all. Why? Because you have never experienced anyone doing it? Now let me quote you your own words... "To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature....."

So according to this we can never claim anything is impossible. While this may be true theoretically, it doesn't stop you from believing that I am full of crap about my ability to levitate does it?

I agree with most everything you're saying but, regardless of the problems you point out, we do this type of reasoning anyway. In this thread, you're applying a very strict set of rules to a very complicated world. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise you end up with extreme positions like not questioning my ability to levitate. If judgement is not used in applying these rules then you're bound to miss some things. I'll give an example below.

I am saying that this is not very credible as an assumption, since obviously this metal object presents something new to us, and so instead of running with the assumption, we can alternatively consider it as disproving the assumption.

I'm not sure I like the way you've worded this. You have made it look like someone who suspects that an object is designed is making an assumption while the person who assumes "chance did it" is not making any assumptions and is open to all explanations. I think both sides are making an assumption and have limited their conclusions. In this case, let me tell you what I would do (and what I think you would probably do too). If I were on Mars and I saw this, I might find it interesting enough to stay on Mars a few extra days. In that time, because I suspect someone built this and placed it here, I might start looking in the area for more signs of things that don't appear to be random constructions. I may find a village 2 miles away full of life.

The other view has simply put the object in the spaceship and gone back to earth, hoping that studying this object will help explain how errosion on Mars creates perfectly square metal boxes. Any assumption has the potential to lead you astray from the correct conclusion.

Remember the quote? "When an eminent scientist says something is possible, he is usually correct. When he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."

Can I use this quote on Zero when he consistently says that Magic is non-existent?

And deciding instead that this is just another "natural" thing you don't know is very constructive, and is in fact used in science.

Lol, I hear you, but I still don't believe you'd do what you're saying in this case. [:D]

But if we consider this as one of a multitude of possibilities that we would have considered unusual if it occured, then the significant disappears.

The analogy is that of the dropped pen. The chance is near zero that a specific position results. But the probability is almost 1 when we consider all the possible positions with a probability of near zero.

The difference in my point is that I am not asking the question "what are the odds of this happening?". Because as you say the odds of any one event will be very small considering all the other possibilities. The question I am asking is "what are the odds of a specific event compared to the odds of those other possibiltiies?" In your pen example, while the probability of any position is almost zero, that probability is not any lower than any other arrangement. An analogy I've used before is to imagine you have a crate full of automobile parts for one automobile. If you shake this crate up and dump it out, what are the odds that the parts will come out in any specific arrangement? Almost zero, as you said. But compare the odds of that with the odds of the parts coming our assembled in such a way that sticking a key in the ignition makes the engine crank? Impossible. I'm sure you can see the difference.

If you had never encountered a circle in your life, you would consider this (still unlikely thing) to be deeply insignificant.

This is an assumption and I disagree with it. This really goes back to my first question to you. Would you really think that an object was created by chance just because you didn't know what it was? I wouldn't, necessarily. And I personally don't believe you would either. If I saw a circle of sticks, I would be drawn to it, ESPECIALLY in the case where I had never seen a circle before! Because it would appear even more non-random in that case.

It appears you are thinking that I am claiming something is unnatural because it resembles something I "KNOW" to be unnatural. But thats not what I'm claiming. Thats the just the nature of the example that I'm using which are designed to use familiar objects to show the asurdiity of your position in the extremes. I am saying that a thing that I am completely unfamiliar with can stick out if it displays characteristics that appear symmetrical and non-random. Yes I know that humans create square metal boxes but that doesn't change the fact that the odds of nature creating a perfect metal square box randomly is almost impossible compared to it being some other non-symmetrical shape which is close to 100%.

You would never guess, for example, that a scar on a piece of wood was made by a wolf on purpose, unless you have a keen knowledge of the behaviour of wolves. In this case, you must be empathising with the creator to a way, and this relies on the assumption that you can. Which rapidly falls as we talk about non-human intelligences.

Correct, I would never guess that a scar is a designed thing because there is nothing statistically signficant about scars on wood. Wood has all kinds of incidental scars, which btw is a reason to suggest that a scar on a piece of wood would not be useful to a wolf anyway unless the designed scar could be distinguished. Which just gets back to my point about designed things being distinguished from naturally occuring things.

True! We can only say that our subjective knowledge approachs objective truth. But Design (in capitals), and some other ideas are inherently absolute concepts, where we presume them to be outside human experience. And as we cannot say whether purpose can be absolute, there is no way to test the subjective knowledge objectively to say that it approaches objective truth.
In effect, we are making a value judgement, and saying that this value judgement reflects an objective component of the universe. We need something to let us make this leap.

I have no problem with this. I just don't think that our inabiltiy to know something necessarily means it isn't true.

Also, I will point out that I have nothing to say about Design (with a capital D). That isn't a necessary theory in the example I proposed. The issue with Design ought to be as you descibed it in the quote above and should have nothing to do with ignoring odds. Because as you can see that position affects decisions in areas that CAN be tested.

What it means is instead "how many experiments does it take for an event to become INcredible?" And that, depending on your initial stance to the question, is either 1, or infinite.

I didn't understand the point of this piece.

FZ+

Aug22-03, 05:11 PM

Because you have never experienced anyone doing it?
No because you gave me some indications that you are more or less human, and I have some experience as to what humans do/are like. Of course, it is still possible that you can levitate things. But not, if you are human, very likely.

Meanwhile, if we discuss something like the universe, it is very clear that we don't know everything about it, and so can't make a judgement on particular odds.

You have made it look like someone who suspects that an object is designed is making an assumption while the person who assumes "chance did it" is not making any assumptions and is open to all explanations. I think both sides are making an assumption.
True. Sorry I made it appear the wrong way. But chance can be very interesting as well, as every scientist tells you. And you can't quite wander about outside the universe looking for a village. [;)] Context is the key here.

The other view has simply put the object in the spaceship and gone back to earth, hoping that studying this object will help explain how errosion on Mars creates perfectly square metal boxes.
Or to look around the planet to find the natural source of it. Don't make it sound *that* boring.

Can I use this quote on Zero when he consistently says that Magic is non-existent?
Heh. Sure. Just note it doesn't quite mean everything is right though, just that we aren't completely, 100% sure.

The difference in my point is that I am not asking the question "what are the odds of this happening?". Because as you say the odds of any one event will be very small considering all the other possibilities. The question I am asking is "what are the odds of a specific event compared to the odds of those other possibiltiies?" In your pen example, while the probability of any position is almost zero, that probability is not any lower than any other arrangement. An analogy I've used before is to imagine you have a crate full of automobile parts for one automobile. If you shake this crate up and dump it out, what are the odds that the parts will come out in any specific arrangement? Almost zero, as you said. But compare the odds of that with the odds of the parts coming our assembled in such a way that sticking a key in the ignition makes the engine crank? Impossible. I'm sure you can see the difference.
But you see the difference here is that you are looking for something specific. Only one configuration will acheive what you desire, as a case of subjective purpose. But in the case of looking for design, this isn't true.
When looking at the metal object, saying "what are the probabilities of this particular shape occuring by chance " isn't really relevant, as it is not just this shape that will do it for you. What you instead examine is "what are the probability that at any position on mars I have covered, at any time, there would be one object which I would find unusual." On such a set of criteria, including the probabilities are exceptionally higher.

To look at the pen, you may then proceed to look at the angle of the pen, and say hey! This angle precisely co-incides with the direction to the nearby supermarket. In a way, we are all such significance junkies.

If I saw a circle of sticks, I would be drawn to it, ESPECIALLY in the case where I had never seen a circle before!
I disagree wildly (yeah! wildly! *flails arms*) on this point, as you just don't have a measure of randomness. There is a certain man in America who insists that words are written on the inside of stones, if only he could understand them.
The fact remains that each day you see things that you never see before, and you have no real way to call them random, or not. Nothing is ever the same (or sometimes it is, but only with very low probability). The only way you judge it is based on your context, and your experience - and to make such a judgement on something on a macro scale, you need to have an understanding of such criteria on the macro scale, or justify the assumption that what you find significant is in fact universally so.

But thats not what I'm claiming. I am saying that a thing that I am completely unfamiliar with can stick out if it displays characteristics that appear symmetrical and non-random.
Now we go all the way back to the snowflakes. Do you agree that snowflakes are, as far as we know, the products of chance? The fact is that we know that symmetrical or whatever pattern do arise out of chance, with order from disorder. What are the chances of a spherical planet? 1. Cubular crystals do result from some atomic structures. Plant growth shows the fibonacci number. Population fluctuation shows self-similarity across scales. The thing is all of this is deterministic chaos - the idea that what we perceive as order is often a natural product of chance. Indeed, the signs show that what we consider as order may be caused by the natural chance made things around us, so what we consider as unnatural is entirely arbitary. (I for one dispute that a distinct nature even exists.)
I know from experience that it is far hard to produce real randomness than create a "beautiful" pattern. We underestimate chance constantly.
(The alternative to that is this is all design of great complexity in motion. That is self-consistent, but I don't really see the evidence. It's no disproof but you expect with design a single trend which items tend towards as an equilibrium. You almost never see that.)

Wood has all kinds of incidental scars, which btw is a reason to suggest that a scar on a piece of wood would not be useful to a wolf anyway unless the designed scar could be distinguished.
And yet it can only be distinguished with the subjective knowledge of the wolf. Hence I think it suggests against an universal quality of design, but on which is subjective to each person.

Also, it's blisteringly hard to talk about statistical significance when we only have one universe to compare.

I have no problem with this. I just don't think that our inabiltiy to know something necessarily means it isn't true.
Then I think you get my point already. the point is that the design argument isn't so much a proof than a statement as to what a believer believes. That is the fatal flaw in using it as an argument for the existence, or non-existence of God.

I didn't understand the point of this piece.
The point is that if you already have a second idea in which you believe in, then you can put this on as a reason for the switch. But if you have no reason for the second theory, you can only see it as a need to amend the first.

Fliption

Aug22-03, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]No because you gave me some indications that you are more or less human, and I have some experience as to what humans do/are like. Of course, it is still possible that you can levitate things. But not, if you are human, very likely.

Meanwhile, if we discuss something like the universe, it is very clear that we don't know everything about it, and so can't make a judgement on particular odds.

It's odd that you make a distinction between humans and the universe. I don't see the distinction when it comes to disproving something about humans. If you do not know everything about the universe then how can you possibly make a statement of certainty about anything that evolves in it?

Or to look around the planet to find the natural source of it. Don't make it sound *that* boring.

LOL. Didn't mean to demean the view. I just picked an action that would demonstrate the wrong conclusion being made with the "chance" assumption.

Heh. Sure. Just note it doesn't quite mean everything is right though, just that we aren't completely, 100% sure.

Agreed

But you see the difference here is that you are looking for something specific. Only one configuration will acheive what you desire, as a case of subjective purpose. But in the case of looking for design, this isn't true.

If I found the automobile parts assembled in a way that would allow the engine to crank, that WOULD be an indication of design. There is no distinction in my view. Also, the engine cranking is not representative of a subjective purpose. It is a real physical property of that particular arrangement. Whether it has useful functions or has any known purpose is not necessary to accept the reality of the odds and investigate accordingly.

When looking at the metal object, saying "what are the probabilities of this particular shape occuring by chance " isn't really relevant, as it is not just this shape that will do it for you. What you instead examine is "what are the probability that at any position on mars I have covered, at any time, there would be one object which I would find unusual." On such a set of criteria, including the probabilities are exceptionally higher.

To look at the pen, you may then proceed to look at the angle of the pen, and say hey! This angle precisely co-incides with the direction to the nearby supermarket. In a way, we are all such significance junkies.

You're saying that whether or not something is statistically significant depends on the question that is asked I believe. You're right. The first question you mentioned could not be answered. "What is the probability of X?" does not provide enough information to have an answer. You would need to do as you did and put some boundaries around the question. Yes, the probability of finding this object on Mars would be higher then finding it on only a "section' of Mars. But this doesn't change the comparison of that probability to the probability of the other options using the same question. This is the method I am suggesting should be used. Regardless of the question, the comparison of the probability of the alternatives should show similar results.

I disagree wildly (yeah! wildly! *flails arms*) on this point, as you just don't have a measure of randomness.

Just so you're clear, I believe that I would notice the circle not ONLY because I have not seen a circle before. I agree I see new stuff all the time and don't think a thing of it. But I would notice the circle because it is a symmetric, unnatural shape based on my vast experience of walking into woods and seeing sticks on the ground. If I see trees growing in a straight line I conclude that someone planted them. I know you do this too. This does not need to be based on knowing that people plant trees in straight lines. It can also be concluded solely because we've never seen trees grow in straight lines by themselves.

Now we go all the way back to the snowflakes. Do you agree that snowflakes are, as far as we know, the products of chance? The fact is that we know that symmetrical or whatever pattern do arise out of chance, with order from disorder. What are the chances of a spherical planet? 1. Cubular crystals do result from some atomic structures. Plant growth shows the fibonacci number. Population fluctuation shows self-similarity across scales.

I understand these things. But in these cases our experience would tell us that symmetry is random. As opposed to a square metal box with assembled, moving parts. That is why I said I would look for "symmetrical AND non-random". All of these examples of yours are the same as the pen example. Yes, snowflakes are symmetrical but a symmetrical snowflake is not statistically significant. The odds of a snowflake taking on one shape is no less than the odds of it taking any other.

But I know what you're saying. You're making an argument that symmetry happens by chance in some things so it would be hasty to conclude design in other lesser known things(like strange objects on Mars). I agree with you completely. I'm not suggesting that any assumption be made. I am suggesting exactly the opposite. Investigate all possibilities.

I know from experience that it is far hard to produce real randomness than create a "beautiful" pattern. We underestimate chance constantly.

(The alternative to that is this is all design of great complexity in motion. That is self-consistent, but I don't really see the evidence. It's no disproof but you expect with design a single trend which items tend towards as an equilibrium. You almost never see that.)

I appreciate these comments. They seem to be more intuitive and personal in nature. I would be interested in trying to understand your views on what you see as trends versus what you would expect to see. But this thread probably isn't the place for it. I'm not interested in debating that with you. I'm more interested in just learning about others perspectives.

And yet it can only be distinguished with the subjective knowledge of the wolf. Hence I think it suggests against an universal quality of design, but on which is subjective to each person.

If a single wolf with a single subjective perspective can distinguish it's designed scar from a non-designed scar than there must be an objective difference. The subjectivity lies in knowledge of purpose. Not the distinction itself, IMHO.

Also, it's blisteringly hard to talk about statistical significance when we only have one universe to compare.

LOL, True. But I don't distinguish the universe from the things in it. They are all part of the same thing. But it is a good point nonetheless.

Then I think you get my point already. the point is that the design argument isn't so much a proof than a statement as to what a believer believes. That is the fatal flaw in using it as an argument for the existence, or non-existence of God.

Yes, I get your point. But design (with a little d) may have nothing to do with a non-testable god.[:D]

The fact remains that each day you see things that you never see before, and you have no real way to call them random, or not. Nothing is ever the same (or sometimes it is, but only with very low probability). The only way you judge it is based on your context, and your experience - and to make such a judgement on something on a macro scale, you need to have an understanding of such criteria on the macro scale, or justify the assumption that what you find significant is in fact universally so.

I agree. I think context and experience is the only way this can be done. And these things have limits. But I'm not going to pretend that we don't already do this now. Only it appears they are selectively applied.

But I think you are I are not so far apart on this.

The point is that if you already have a second idea in which you believe in, then you can put this on as a reason for the switch. But if you have no reason for the second theory, you can only see it as a need to amend the first.

Uuuummmmm. ok. [:(]

FZ+

Aug23-03, 06:36 PM

If you do not know everything about the universe then how can you possibly make a statement of certainty about anything that evolves in it?
Because we define human as being X and X, and having X abilities. If you could levitate things, then I wouldn't consider you as human in the conventional sense. And as you say that you are, like me a human, then I come to expect certain things of you, like an inability to levitate things. [;)]

Note that I am not saying that there is anything universally special about humanity. With my cold, cruel world view, mankind represents a pattern of existence, significant only to ourselves via our system of definition. Ain't I nasty?[:D]

If I found the automobile parts assembled in a way that would allow the engine to crank, that WOULD be an indication of design.
But would it? You can raise this because we of course expect engines to crank. But suppose I threw together any mess of things and it managed to rotate a bit before it ran to a halt, as a equilibrium (such as when it ran out of fuel...), would you say that was an indication of design? Ie. we can raise the issue of design in the car because we have a purpose we considered. But if the purpose we wish of the engine was different eg. to fall down in a particularly ludicrous way (like the purposes of Skodas for example [;)], then any number of configurations would be an indication of design.

Yes, the probability of finding this object on Mars would be higher then finding it on only a "section' of Mars.
But you see, this doesn't work. As you increase in scale, the probability of chance raises to infinity, while the probability of design remains constant. There is no one uniform absolute scale on which we can consider such odds when recognising design - unless if by presuming absolute purpose we make such one exist. It's like an old puzzle - what is the length of a coastline. At first sight, it appears simple, but it appears that as you increase in accuracy, using smaller and smaller rulers, you don't settle down but arrive towards an infinite length.
The second part of the problem is again referring to the lack of specification of the question. When you are asking for design, you aren't looking for one object, but any object which appears to have a design. Would you then shrug when you walk past a triangular metal block? Or a circular one? Or etc etc... On this level, there is no non-arbitary way for you to define apparent design - except in terms of subjective feeling, instinct or experience.

This does not need to be based on knowing that people plant trees in straight lines. It can also be concluded solely because we've never seen trees grow in straight lines by themselves.

I am asking... can you be sure of this? To say this, you must first have seen enough of forests in the first place to know what to expect... And still it is in part a reflection of your personal instincts, not a distinct quality from reality. Ie. it shows purpose to your particular sense of purpose, but it isn't universally purposeful. I bet dogs never notice. [;)]

I guess I am proposing a relativist concept of purpose. Ie. only relevant when we have a particular perspective.

I'd let to bump another idea, since we more or less know where we agree or disagree. (Or maybe you disagree with that?[:)])
Attached to this is the concept of makership... Ie. how do you distinguish X as man made, or chance made? How far does the influence lead?

For example, it can be possible to say that almost everything is manmade, for from each of our actions we create a tide of influence, affecting one thing, which affects another etc, which brings the whole earth into the position it is. (presuming some sort of determinance, of course) How do you draw the line?

I tend towards the answer that than man is a manifestation of chance, and so things that are man made or things that are chance made, only by a different branch of chance. Sort of. What do you think?

<Insert flames here>

heusdens

Aug24-03, 10:19 AM

All our knowledge comes from subjective experience.

Untrue. Our knowledge comes from objective experience, from our relation with objective reality.

Our minds know nothing by themselves.

Fliption

Aug24-03, 12:19 PM

Hmm it seems we are doing nothing but going in circles now. You aren't saying much that I don't already understand but I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. First of all, to your point about what it means to be designed, lets just say for the purposes of this discussion that a designed thing is a thing that has been directly and intentionally created for some purpose by an intelligent being.

Now if you take a look at everything that fits this description around you, you may notice that the odds of most of these things being created by chance is almost impossible. Much like the automobile example. Never heard of one occurring by chance. Let me make this clear....it is not the subjective function that makes it low in probability" It is the actualy physical configuration and it's properties that make it unlikely. The odds of parts being arranged in this specific way is so much lower than the other possibilities. So all I'm saying to you is that there MUST be a correlation between a designed thing and the odds of it occuring in nature by chance. The proof is all around you. Does this mean that everything that has impossible odds is designed? NO! I concede this. All I'm saying is that it could be a strong indicator. Strong enough to at least be open to investigating the possibility. This is why I said that automobile parts coming together by chance to allow for the engine cranking is a rare configuration that would suggest the possibility of design. Let me say this one more time knowledge of purpose or functionaility is not needed to do what I have suggested above. The correlation of probability and intent is all that is needed.

Originally posted by FZ+
[B]Because we define human as being X and X, and having X abilities. If you could levitate things, then I wouldn't consider you as human in the conventional sense. And as you say that you are, like me a human, then I come to expect certain things of you, like an inability to levitate things. [;)]

But you not considering me human (because I can levitate) and then concluding that I can't levitate because I consider myself human is assuming that we define human the same way. I'm not sure how this shows anything.

I still claim that if you do not know everything about the universe then you cannot say what is a possible evolutive path for anything in it. Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.

Just to bring perspective to this discussion of levitation.....I brought it up to show you that you do exactly what I'm claiming can be done. And that is to dismiss something based on past experience even though I can make the same claims to you that you have been making to me; that you cannot possiby have enough knowledge to do this.

But would it? You can raise this because we of course expect engines to crank. But suppose I threw together any mess of things and it managed to rotate a bit before it ran to a halt, as a equilibrium (such as when it ran out of fuel...), would you say that was an indication of design?

If the configuration is low enough in probability compared to the other options then yes I am saying you would need to consider a special arrangement that has intent built in. But my position would state that if you're configuration really came out by chance then it would not be able to do any of the things you have claimed it is doing because it is almost impossible for that to happen! The situation you are trying to paint which is one where the most impossible thing really does happen by chance and shows the flaw in what I'm saying cannot happen very often at all. By definition!

But you see, this doesn't work. As you increase in scale, the probability of chance raises to infinity, while the probability of design remains constant.

I don't understand this. There is no such measure as the "probability of chance". All there is is the probability of one configuration compared to the probability of all the other options. That is all there is. It is all math. There is no design, purpose, functionaility or any of that in this approach that I am using. All you can do is compare the probability of one configuration to others. When the question increases in scope the probabilities of all the options will increase accordingly but the comparison will be the same.

I am asking... can you be sure of this? To say this, you must first have seen enough of forests in the first place to know what to expect... And still it is in part a reflection of your personal instincts, not a distinct quality from reality. Ie. it shows purpose to your particular sense of purpose, but it isn't universally purposeful. I bet dogs never notice. [;)]

And dogs don't disbelieve levitation either. I can decern this about trees with about the same credibility that you can decern I can't levitate things. To put this tree discussion in perspective...I brought this up because I was showing a real world problem where I use odds to make a decision. I claim I've seen enough forest to do this just as you claim you know humans well enough to know what I can and cannot do. So you either agree that this method can be used(in the case of humans) or you do not believe it can be used(like in the case of forest). Which is it?

Fliption

Aug24-03, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Untrue. Our knowledge comes from objective experience, from our relation with objective reality.

Our minds know nothing by themselves.

Arguing against this is like trying to argue against 2+2=5. I think enough people here agree with what I said to make it not worth trying .

Zero

Aug24-03, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Arguing against this is like trying to argue against 2+2=5. I think enough people here agree with what I said to make it not worth trying . People agreeing with you doesn't make you right...and you KNOW this, man![6)]

Fliption

Aug24-03, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Zero
People agreeing with you doesn't make you right...and you KNOW this, man![6)]

True, but his position is extreme and we have enough things to sort out without having to deal with this kind of stuff. If you want We can get LifeGazer back to help balance out this extreme view.

Zero

Aug24-03, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
True, but his position is extreme and we have enough things to sort out without having to deal with this kind of stuff. If you want We can get LifeGazer back to help balance out this extreme view. LOL, when you put it that way, never mind!

FZ+

Aug24-03, 07:09 PM

Now if you take a look at everything that fits this description around you, you may notice that the odds of most of these things being created by chance is almost impossible.
But I am saying that the odds of any other thing that is not apparently designed appearing by chance is also almost zero. I am saying that we identify the specific entity - car, because we have in our minds a specific attributed purpose to it.

Does this mean that everything that has impossible odds is designed? NO! I concede this. All I'm saying is that it could be a strong indicator.
Let's look at it from a different direction. To use such odds as an indicator, it must be specified that all else which is apparently not designed has comparatively high odds of existence. I simply don't think this is generally the case.

Maybe we should just agree with disagree.

The correlation of probability and intent is all that is needed.
What I really require is the correlation of high probability, with lack of intent.

But you not considering me human (because I can levitate) and then concluding that I can't levitate because I consider myself human is assuming that we define human the same way. I'm not sure how this shows anything.
Heh... Hell... I've forgotten what this whole levitation thing was about... [g)]

Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.
Uh... isn't that exactly what I was trying to say, when I was talking about our lack of knowledge of an essentially infinite universe? I'm confused...

And that is to dismiss something based on past experience even though I can make the same claims to you that you have been making to me; that you cannot possiby have enough knowledge to do this.
Ah, now I remember... I mean that my belief in your lack of ability to levitate stuff stems from two things - an act of definition as to what is human and humanly capable, and a trust in that you share my definition as the basis of a language system. And the point was that while we have some experience of humanity and a good, consistent definition of what humanity represents, we know nothing of what chance is capable of, or of the existence of a designer that would allow the alternative of the design.

If the configuration is low enough in probability compared to the other options then yes I am saying you would need to consider a special arrangement that has intent built in.
But my sticker is that all the possibilities has almost no probability, and all of them produce a distinct result. The trick is in identifying a meaningful result. A boulder rolling down a hill fits in the idea of engine as identified - increase the length of the hill and it can run for a long time.

What is the difference between the engine and the hill but that the engine does something that is subjectively - to our perspective - useful?

All there is is the probability of one configuration compared to the probability of all the other options.
The thing is, we aren't looking for one configuration, but for any one of many configurations that fulfills a certain subjective threshold. And that by raising or lowering the threshold, we change the resultant probability.
And then we get the feedback problem. How do we assess the probability, even comparative, but by observing the incidents happen? If we see a low probability event occur, then you can simply raise the probability of the result. And so, by this method, we would conclude from an engine that the probability of the engine occuring is much larger than we expected, so the occurance of the engine is nothing out of the ordinary - rather, it is our original assessment of the probability of an engine appearing that was flawed and unrealistic.

So you either agree that this method can be used(in the case of humans) or you do not believe it can be used(like in the case of forest). Which is it?
My point is that I do not believe you are using the method as you are suggesting, but by the method of comparing known alternatives.

Fliption

Aug24-03, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
But I am saying that the odds of any other thing that is not apparently designed appearing by chance is also almost zero. I am saying that we identify the specific entity - car, because we have in our minds a specific attributed purpose to it.

Yes, I have agreed with you that the odds of any specific snowflake occurring is almost zero. But the distinction is that these odds are no less than any other configuration of a snowflake given the boundaries that a snowflake operates in. And there is a 100% chance that it will take one of them.

This is clearly NOT the case with an engine made of automobile parts. If you bump into a contraption on Mars that could crank you would then ask yourself the question... "what are the odds that parts can naturally assemble themselves to allow the resulting creation to crank?" Yes, cranking would have to be part of the criteria but it is simply a physical property you have observed. There does not have to be any subjective understanding of the function of cranking.

Let's look at it from a different direction. To use such odds as an indicator, it must be specified that all else which is apparently not designed has comparatively high odds of existence. I simply don't think this is generally the case.

Neither do I. That is why I do not say that non-designed things have high probability. I say that they have significantly higher probability. There is a big difference. That is why I keep saying "compare" the options. That is where the huge disparity in probability is.

What I really require is the correlation of high probability, with lack of intent.

On a scale from 0 to 100, the number 3 would be a very low number. But it is huge compared to .0000000000000001.

Ah, now I remember... I mean that my belief in your lack of ability to levitate stuff stems from two things - an act of definition as to what is human and humanly capable, and a trust in that you share my definition as the basis of a language system.

Sure we might define human similarly but my definition might be slightly different and may not define it as a being who can't levitate. Especially if I could actually levitate and definitely considered myself human!

And the point was that while we have some experience of humanity and a good, consistent definition of what humanity represents, we know nothing of what chance is capable of, or of the existence of a designer that would allow the alternative of the design.

I still just don't see how you can claim that you can't speak about the universe due to lack of knowledge, yet you can compartmentalize any object inside of it and say everything that needs to be said. This method seems as unstable and subjective as what I'm suggesting.

But my sticker is that all the possibilities has almost no probability, and all of them produce a distinct result. The trick is in identifying a meaningful result. A boulder rolling down a hill fits in the idea of engine as identified - increase the length of the hill and it can run for a long time.

What is the difference between the engine and the hill but that the engine does something that is subjectively - to our perspective - useful?

I don't understand why you can't understand what I'm saying. The difference is obvious. Boulders run down hills all the time! Have you ever seen an automobile engine put itself together by chance? You keep getting hung up on the fact that we "know" what an automobile engine is therefore it is the usefulness of it that makes me single it out. Thats just the nature of the examples I've used. I have to use a device that we are both familiar with or else I have no way of pointing out the correlation between designed things and the improbability of them happening by chance.

The bottomline is that you can call anything you want an engine. Some engines will be designed and some will not. It has nothing to do with usefulness. It has to do with the odds of them appearing by chance. An engine like a boulder rolling down a hill is a natural engine. An engine made of automobile parts is not a natural engine. Why? Because you have never seen one created by nature.

The thing is, we aren't looking for one configuration, but for any one of many configurations that fulfills a certain subjective threshold. And that by raising or lowering the threshold, we change the resultant probability.

And then we get the feedback problem. How do we assess the probability, even comparative, but by observing the incidents happen? If we see a low probability event occur, then you can simply raise the probability of the result. And so, by this method, we would conclude from an engine that the probability of the engine occuring is much larger than we expected, so the occurance of the engine is nothing out of the ordinary - rather, it is our original assessment of the probability of an engine appearing that was flawed and unrealistic.

Fine. But all you've done is described what we do in all our investigative endeavers. We make theories and test them. If we find evidence to suggest otherwise then we change our theories. I don't understand why in this case we have to assume the answer is "A" just because "B" might be wrong. Especially when "A" might be wrong as well. It just seems a bit insincere to me.

Also, all of what you have said applies to your conclusion about my ability to levitate.

My point is that I do not believe you are using the method as you are suggesting, but by the method of comparing known alternatives.

I didn't understand this.

I think my whole point is that we all do what I'm suggesting. You did it with my ability to levitate. You do it even though the idea that you know enough about humans to make this claim is itself as subjective as anything I've proposed. How do you know when you know enough? We all use our experience, intutition and subjective views when we're trying to figure things out. Everyone does!

So I entered this thread because once again I see people suddenly trying to act like strict, textbook following robots whenever the topic of design comes up.

heusdens

Aug25-03, 10:22 AM

Fliption:

You main argument then would be that since for instance an automobile has a hight improbability of assembling itself, given it's complexity and fine-tuning of parts to make it a working thing, it makes you conclude the thing needs a maker or creator.

And then you go on to reason since we need a maker or designer in that case, we need to assume that also in the case of complex living celss.

But here is the error in your thinking, namely the assumption that the making of a car is cause by an act of creation.

When exactly was this car created or designed? Well, please go and lookup all the history of making of cars, for most part it is recent history, that is not very difficult then.

The first question is -- was a car ever designed or created?
The concept of a car we did not get from thin air, or by one "creative" invention. Instead it was ...... A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS!!

A car started being an automobile when we were combining two different concepts: that of a charot and that of a benzine or diesel motor. So to explain the automobile, you need to explain bot the charot and the benzine or diesel motor. And then there are other parts to the automobile. All denote a specific development history.
The first element in car design was the rolling of tree trunks and or round stones for some form of transporation, and then making that into an artifact of human technology, the wheel.

So the deisgn history of the car is already a history of thousands of years!

Does not add up to one creation event, does it?

Zero

Aug25-03, 10:38 AM

Has this thread turned into an ID topic?

Royce

Aug25-03, 11:26 AM

No, the car was not one creative event but thousands of creative events logical put together one step at a time to create something that did not exist in objective reality before. Wheels do not grow on trees nor do they fall from mountains. Wheels were invented and invention is a subjective creation. The idea for the wheel, car anything had to first form in some persons consciousness before that person could go about forming a wheel.

This idea was formed because of a perscieved subjective need. Every invention of mankind including objectivity is a subjective event.

Fliption

Aug25-03, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Fliption:

You main argument then would be that since for instance an automobile has a hight improbability of assembling itself, given it's complexity and fine-tuning of parts to make it a working thing, it makes you conclude the thing needs a maker or creator.

No That's not my argument. I don't make any conclusions based on odds. All I'm doing is pointing out the correlation between designed things and the statistical improbability of those things happening in nature. If the odds are incredible enough it doesn't "need" anything like a creator necessarily. It just needs to be explored with a more open mind as to how it got where it is.

So the deisgn history of the car is already a history of thousands of years!

Does not add up to one creation event, does it?

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.

Zero

Aug25-03, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread. Uh huh...*grins*

The problem I have with the design idea is that it depends on the unproven idea of intent, if'n you see my point. A car is designed with an intent in mind: transportation. What intent is there in a tree sloth, or a neutron star?

FZ+

Aug25-03, 01:44 PM

This is clearly NOT the case with an engine made of automobile parts. If you bump into a contraption on Mars that could crank you would then ask yourself the question... "what are the odds that parts can naturally assemble themselves to allow the resulting creation to crank?" Yes, cranking would have to be part of the criteria but it is simply a physical property you have observed. There does not have to be any subjective understanding of the function of cranking.
But is it? What I am really correlating here is looking for one specific configuration of parts that make it crank with looking for one specific pattern of water molecules that lets the finished snowflake fulfil your criteria of a certain shape - the puzzle is in selecting the precise criteria, and that is subjective.

Suppose we have a lock, with a hole with which a specific snowflake fits in, and we find a snowflake that happens to fit it. Then we would argue that the safe is designed, would we not? And hence is the point - the thing that makes us think the thing is designed is not the item, or whatever odds it has, but the safe, the mental keyhole in which it fits. Boulders do roll down hills, but they never roll down in exactly the same way. What is critical to the finding of purpose in these cases is us, and the purpose our subjectivity provides. That is what focuses our minds on the cranking of the engine instead of the special ways in can fall apart - the fact that we find it useful. And another problem is that we cannot determine if the key was made for the lock, or the lock was made for the key. If we have a lock and a key, then it is easy to suggest design is present. But with only a key, or a lock, then we cannot begin but by making assumptions.

I still just don't see how you can claim that you can't speak about the universe due to lack of knowledge, yet you can compartmentalize any object inside of it and say everything that needs to be said. This method seems as unstable and subjective as what I'm suggesting.
I think it goes back to another assumption of mine - that we can know any one thing, but we simply will never know everything.

Boulders run down hills all the time! Have you ever seen an automobile engine put itself together by chance?
No, but I have never seen a boulder set itself in a position that makes it run down the hill either. (Just clarify for a moment. I am comparing the running down the hill of a boulder to the running of the engine, not the spontaneous creation of the latter) I am saying that in blunt, physical terms, the function of an engine is almost the same as the boulder down the hill. It is the function we have for it that sets the two apart. If I was to land one earth and mankind was to disappear, by counting the number of engines around, I would conclude a high probability of the engines arriving by chance, since they all appear to be naturally present. Before we discovered glaciation etc, did we really believe people pushed boulders up hills, rigged them in precarious positions where they can fall?
The method for us the judge the probability of the boulders is to see how often they appear, though we cannot watch them spontaneously put themselves in positions where they can fall, we assume that they do so. By your method, if we compare the appearance of engines and boulders right now, without reference to function etc, we might be forgiven for interpretating that it is the boulders that are designed, not the engines.

I didn't understand this.
What I mean is that when I thought you can't levitate (ignoring the definition based objections) I considered two alternatives - that I know you can lie, and I know no mechanism you can levitate. But when we say about design of the metal block, I know that there is a chance of it appearing, but I don't know if the designers exist which would allow this block to appear any other way, and I don't know if they have any purpose for it. What is neccessary is to establish the latter ones.

Fliption

Aug25-03, 02:57 PM

But is it? What I am really correlating here is looking for one specific configuration of parts that make it crank with looking for one specific pattern of water molecules that lets the finished snowflake fulfil your criteria of a certain shape - the puzzle is in selecting the precise criteria, and that is subjective.

Suppose we have a lock, with a hole with which a specific snowflake fits in, and we find a snowflake that happens to fit it. Then we would argue that the safe is designed, would we not? And hence is the point - the thing that makes us think the thing is designed is not the item, or whatever odds it has, but the safe, the mental keyhole in which it fits. Boulders do roll down hills, but they never roll down in exactly the same way. What is critical to the finding of purpose in these cases is us, and the purpose our subjectivity provides. That is what focuses our minds on the cranking of the engine instead of the special ways in can fall apart - the fact that we find it useful. And another problem is that we cannot determine if the key was made for the lock, or the lock was made for the key. If we have a lock and a key, then it is easy to suggest design is present. But with only a key, or a lock, then we cannot begin but by making assumptions.

I hear what you're saying but I just don't agree with it. If I found a snowflake that fit exactly into a lock I would NOT think it was designed. It is because the feature that you are using to establish it as designed is the way it interacts with something else or gets "used". As opposed to a unique physical property that it has on it's own. You keep getting hung up on subjective usefulness. If this really happened, I would step back and ask myself, "Now what makes the characteristics of this snowflake any different in terms of it's odds than any other?" Nothing. That particular shape just happens to be the right shape for that lock but in and of itself, it has no less odds of occurring than any other shape. As opposed to an automobile engine. And I just cannot accept the idea that a cranking engine would just be ignored completely as an unusual object simply because we didn't know what the function of cranking was. That just seems ridiculous.

I think it goes back to another assumption of mine - that we can know any one thing, but we simply will never know everything.

Ok, then we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

If I know everything about 99% of the species in the water, I still won't swim in the water until I find out whether the other 1% eats meat. Also, this 1% might influence the behavior of the other 99% in ways that I cannot know.

No, but I have never seen a boulder set itself in a position that makes it run down the hill either. (Just clarify for a moment. I am comparing the running down the hill of a boulder to the running of the engine, not the spontaneous creation of the latter) I am saying that in blunt, physical terms, the function of an engine is almost the same as the boulder down the hill. It is the function we have for it that sets the two apart. If I was to land one earth and mankind was to disappear, by counting the number of engines around, I would conclude a high probability of the engines arriving by chance, since they all appear to be naturally present. Before we discovered glaciation etc, did we really believe people pushed boulders up hills, rigged them in precarious positions where they can fall?
The method for us the judge the probability of the boulders is to see how often they appear, though we cannot watch them spontaneously put themselves in positions where they can fall, we assume that they do so. By your method, if we compare the appearance of engines and boulders right now, without reference to function etc, we might be forgiven for interpretating that it is the boulders that are designed, not the engines.

huh? Heh. This is silly. Give us a little credit(since we all do what I'm suggesting). You are taking what I'm saying and then applying it in a vacuum of information and showing how absurd things would result. For example, you and I both know that if we shake a crate full of auto parts that they will never come out assembled in such a way for them to crank. How do we know this? I personally have zero experience shaking crates full of auto parts. It's because we have a very good understanding of how the laws of physics work in a setting such as this. The amount of information and experience that would play into a decision like this would be vast. It would not be constrained to the local setting and situation like you have done here. If I went to another planet and saw crankable cars everywhere and no people, I would entertain the option that the people have either died or left because I know that nature has never in my experience produced objects that are made up of hundreds of moving, symetrical metal parts and make alot of noise when a small metal plate is turned. While this new planet may be different and defy the laws of physics as we know it, that is the risk we take everytime we create a theory. We base it on what we know and when we learn something different our theories change.

What I mean is that when I thought you can't levitate (ignoring the definition based objections) I considered two alternatives - that I know you can lie, and I know no mechanism you can levitate. But when we say about design of the metal block, I know that there is a chance of it appearing, but I don't know if the designers exist which would allow this block to appear any other way, and I don't know if they have any purpose for it. What is neccessary is to establish the latter ones.

And I can as easily make the claim that there is no mechanism for a square metal box encasing assembled parts to happen naturally. The analogy seems clear to me. Neither have ever happened in our experience so they are in the same boat of credibility.

Just so you know....I wouldn't believe it if anyone told me they could levitate things either. Just like I wouldn't initially believe that box was created naturally. Consistency!

dschou

Aug25-03, 03:39 PM

some interesting quotes that may be somewhat applicable to this discussion:

"the fool says in his heart there is no God"

"...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator. though they claimed to be wise they became fools."

lets step out on a limb here. God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me.

nevertheless, the sheer nonsense that is spewed forth by the atheist or the materialist (in short, the fool) is not above reproach or rebuttal though it nears "reductio ad absurdum".

some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.

somewhere in all this reasoning, everyone became unreasonable (and for no apparent reason - the truth is quite obvious).

heusdens

Aug25-03, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
No That's not my argument. I don't make any conclusions based on odds. All I'm doing is pointing out the correlation between designed things and the statistical improbability of those things happening in nature. If the odds are incredible enough it doesn't "need" anything like a creator necessarily. It just needs to be explored with a more open mind as to how it got where it is.

Please explain to me how can you do a real probability calculation?
Doesn't that involve wild speculations about for instance:
- The number of planets that have earthlike conditions, which amongst others involve the number of stars, galaxies, etc. (there is presumably much more universe outside of the observable horizon!)

How can you claim to be able to perform probability calculus on that?

Secondly: you do not know the exact mechanism that evolves life from non-life. It makes your probability theory baseless then.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.

What do you mean with "creation" then?
Isn't it the same then as determinism?

We have no problem by stating that there were determining events and laws at work in the material world, that caused life from non-life.
They obviously were there, since it happened.

Iacchus32

Aug25-03, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by dschou
some interesting quotes that may be somewhat applicable to this discussion:

"the fool says in his heart there is no God"

"...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator. though they claimed to be wise they became fools."

lets step out on a limb here. God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me.

nevertheless, the sheer nonsense that is spewed forth by the atheist or the materialist (in short, the fool) is not above reproach or rebuttal though it nears "reductio ad absurdum".

some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.

somewhere in all this reasoning, everyone became unreasonable (and for no apparent reason - the truth is quite obvious). This actually makes a lot of sense! Except for one thing perhaps, the part about God not being subject to us, otherwise I don't think He would have given us an ego. [;)]

While it also says something to this effect in the scriptures, when Jesus is asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of God?" and Jesus replies, "He who is least among you is the greatest."

Maybe this is why it's so hard to acknowledge that He exists, because He's so busy fulfilling the needs of His creation?

BoulderHead

Aug25-03, 05:34 PM

Maybe this is why it's so hard to acknowledge that He exists, because He's so busy fulfilling the needs of His creation?
Guess again.

heusdens

Aug25-03, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by dschou
some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.

Ok. Want proof? Here is how you do this. Find someone in your neighbourhood. Now bow at each other in such a way your heads collide against each other firmly. If you both feel a sudden pain in the head, it means you both exist objectively.

Be carefull though not to do that too firmly, since then you might knock each other unconsciously, and in that state, you sense of objectivity gets lost a while.

dschou

Aug26-03, 12:06 PM

ok. your humour is lost on me.

banging heads with my neighbour is little more proof than pinching myself, which begs the question: why the outlandish imperative? i have an inkling that it was snide, underhanded attack, but that is neither here nor there.

now with regards to the reasoning here, that i can determine OBJECTIVELY my existence through SENSATION, i have little to say but that this is the most SUBJECTIVE method with which to determine my existence.

further, if, through sensation, i could determine existence (and i believe that i can), then God most definitely exists, for i have FELT his presence for some time now and have witnessed his grandeur most personally in his creation. if this sensation is but clouded delusion or perhaps - as one might say - a series of explainable chemical imbalances, then why could i not infer that the pain in my head as it becomes incident on my neighbour's is not likewise a clouded delusion? an unreality?

i will make an existential claim here. i propose that there is no way to determine objectively my own existence save through a series of inductive arguments which may or may not be flawed, but which do not in any way facilitate a deductive proof. QED.

some poetry:

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

-Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-1889)

FZ+

Aug26-03, 06:11 PM

i will make an existential claim here. i propose that there is no way to determine objectively my own existence save through a series of inductive arguments which may or may not be flawed, but which do not in any way facilitate a deductive proof. QED.
You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED.

For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to any one side is self-evidently wrong.

"the fool says in his heart there is no God"
Rather, the fool says in his heart that he knows.

Flipton:
If I went to another planet and saw crankable cars everywhere and no people, I would entertain the option that the people have either died or left because I know that nature has never in my experience produced objects that are made up of hundreds of moving, symetrical metal parts and make alot of noise when a small metal plate is turned.
And when you go to Mars, and find the sky red instead of blue, you assume that your eyes have gone bad? I am still hinting that the recognition stems from the declaration that the act - cranking - can only be done by a designed thing, and that the identification of this act is a subjective process that cannot be expanded universally. You see, it can easy be argued that the snowflake's unique property is it's exact shape, which gives it the ability to fit into the hole. You can't make a distinction in that way.

And I can as easily make the claim that there is no mechanism for a square metal box encasing assembled parts to happen naturally.
Yes you can - you just said it flies together by chance. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because we have already determined that this is subjective - it is based on what claims you make. And so, we can't expand this as an universal principle.

Back to dschou:
some poetry:
I have always wondered why there are so few atheist poets. Can so few see the beauty there is in chance? That the mad dancing of little dots should give a fresh rhythm of order, and through it great complexity is something that is to me far more wondrous, and deep.

dschou

Aug26-03, 10:49 PM

----------------------------------------------
quote:

"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."
-----------------------------------------------

allow me to interpret liberally what FZ+ has stated. i, on one hand, axiomatically exist because of the principle premise that my existance remains undisputed. however, God's existence - though likewise axiomatic in nature (by necessity) - cannot be presumed since it is a subject that as yet remains undetermined in the minds of many.

following this argument to its rightful conclusion then (and not to a premature termination as in the above reasoning), my existence is only axiomatic insofar as it remains undisputed. also, God's existence is assured when and only when all agnostic debate ceases (to the effect that we agree that he does exist).

i therefore dispute my own existence. i also declare that God's existence is beyond dispute and, further, that all those who declare to the contrary are purposefully lying in the interests of spurning philosophical debate. so we have it that my existence is disputed while God's is not and therefore God exists while i do not. which begs the question, who is writing this?

i find it truthfully comical that one would purport that God's existence depends on us accepting it. what wilful ignorance - how can anyone justify this untenable position? please do so, or at least try.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:
"For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to any one side is self-evidently wrong."
-----------------------------------------------

this would seem correct if i didn't know it to be wrong. the truth is, a believer in God stands directly opposite to one who denies his existence. to contemplate a raprochement between the two would be nonsense. therefore, as God's existence is axiomatic, and i do believe in his existence, my entire worldview is shaped by and evolves from this underlying premise. also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.

FZ+

Aug27-03, 05:14 AM

http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=axiom
"1 a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim "
The existence of god is not generally accepted - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"3 a self-evident statement"
The existence is god is not self-evident - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"4 (Logic) (maths) a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system "
The existence of god is not neccessary - ergo, it is not an axiom.

One might note what this does say - in the mind of the believer, where the assumption of God forms the root of other thoughts, the idea of god is axiomatic and consistent. For one who does not beleive, the assumption of God is arbitary and unneccessary. Henceforth this does not at all indicate an absolute right position, and only ignorance lies in calling the other position inherently a fool.

also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.
I would call on you to rethink that position - there is a very long road between thinking that "some god" has to exist, than picking a specific one, as that implies not just neutrality but positive disbelief in the infinity of other Gods, which can be considered equally self-evident.

For your information, the fool proposal I made was in fact from Buddhism. Apparently their God (or universal reality, whatever) is wiser.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.
Only if you believe so.

heusdens

Aug27-03, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by dschou
----------------------------------------------
quote:

"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."
-----------------------------------------------

allow me to interpret liberally what FZ+ has stated. i, on one hand, axiomatically exist because of the principle premise that my existance remains undisputed. however, God's existence - though likewise axiomatic in nature (by necessity) - cannot be presumed since it is a subject that as yet remains undetermined in the minds of many.

following this argument to its rightful conclusion then (and not to a premature termination as in the above reasoning), my existence is only axiomatic insofar as it remains undisputed. also, God's existence is assured when and only when all agnostic debate ceases (to the effect that we agree that he does exist).

i therefore dispute my own existence. i also declare that God's existence is beyond dispute and, further, that all those who declare to the contrary are purposefully lying in the interests of spurning philosophical debate. so we have it that my existence is disputed while God's is not and therefore God exists while i do not. which begs the question, who is writing this?

i find it truthfully comical that one would purport that God's existence depends on us accepting it. what wilful ignorance - how can anyone justify this untenable position? please do so, or at least try.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:
"For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to any one side is self-evidently wrong."
-----------------------------------------------

this would seem correct if i didn't know it to be wrong. the truth is, a believer in God stands directly opposite to one who denies his existence. to contemplate a raprochement between the two would be nonsense. therefore, as God's existence is axiomatic, and i do believe in his existence, my entire worldview is shaped by and evolves from this underlying premise. also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.

Where does your outlook on reality in total begin, if not in acknowledging the fact that you are consciouss, and have consciouss awareness of a world, that exists outside, apart and independend of your mind?

You can't state you yourself do not exist, since you are aware that you are. You could just try the assumption that the world of which you are aware, and that is projected into your mind, would not exist independend, apart and outside of your mind.

However, then you have the following facts which you can not explain:
- Where did the world come from? If it is said that the world just exists entirely in your mind, and there is nothing outside of it, then what caused the world to exist?
- Why do we have senses, eyes and ears, if the world itself of which we are aware, would only exist in our mind?
- Why do other people/mind exist, and how can they exist outside and apart of our mind, if everything that exists, exist in our mind?
- Why don't we have all knowledge about everything, since everything would exist in our own minds?
- Why don't we have memories about an infinite past, so that it seems the world started from appearently nothing?

Clearly these questions can not be answered, based on our assumption.
We conclude therefore that our assumption that the world itself, would not exist apart, independend and outside of our mind, is wrong.

So, this means our basic position and our ground for any reasoned assumptions about the world, would have to start from the fact that the world itself, which is reflected and projected in our minds, denotes something that exists independend, outside and apart from our own minds.

This conclusion is satisfactory since it explains:
- Why we ourselves exists, since the world contains all the causes, and also contains our reason for existence
- Why we have senses, since we use them to perceive of the world, and be aware of it.
- Why we don't know everything, since the world exists outside of our mind.
- Why there are other people/minds, who are also aware of the same world
- Why the world itself, did not start, since it already existed before we were there.

I think this assumption is therefore far more reasonable as the assumption that the world would exist entirely within our own mind.

Since we reject that the world could have been entirely dependend on our own consciousness, and we know only directly our own consciousness, this means, we can only account that the world itself exists in objective and material form, without begin or end.

This therefore immediately rejects any creator thing.

Royce

Aug27-03, 12:05 PM

Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden.
You also said that we have perception, consciousness and awareness, all sujective things, thoughts. And then:
Since we reject that the world could have been entirely dependend on our own consciousness, and we know only directly our own consciousness, this means, we can only account that the world itself exists in objective and material form, without begin or end.

It is not that the objective world is dependent on our consciousness, it is that this is the only way that we can be aware of the world. We therefore have to assume that the objective material world exists with out any supporting evidence other than the subective awareness of ourselves and others.

Having already made an unsupported assumption there is no reason or reasonable need to assump that such as reality is without begin and without end. There is however supported reason to believe that the world, universe did indeed have a beginning and will have and end reguardless of the semantic argument of some 19th century philosophers.

There is no such thing as subjective objectivity nor can the subjective ever become objective. The terms are mutually exclusive and contradictory thus it is an oxymoron. We, therefore, have already agreed that both objectivity and subjectivity exists. This contradicts the position of extreme materialist in which only the objective material world exist and existence is only possible if something else exist outside of something else. This is rubbish. Either something exists indepent of anything else or it doesn't.

As the universe contains everything that exists by definition, nothing exists outside of the universe. By Marx's reasoning this make the universe nonexistent as there is nothing outside of itself.

Karl Marx was not a true philosopher,but had an agenda. He was attempting to rationalize and justify his political and economic revolution. His ability to reason philosophically was almost as good as his knowlege of economics in the real world and of human nature as it really is. If you care to look around you and see what a success communism and its classless society is compared to capitalism and democratic republics you will begin to get an inkling of his faulty thinking. That is unless of course he was being intentionally deceptive from the beginning, which wouldn't surprise me either.

Fliption

Aug27-03, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
And when you go to Mars, and find the sky red instead of blue, you assume that your eyes have gone bad? I am still hinting that the recognition stems from the declaration that the act - cranking - can only be done by a designed thing, and that the identification of this act is a subjective process that cannot be expanded universally.

I Agree! For the most part. But with the sky example I think you are making the same mistake that you made with the boulder example by assuming that I am proposing some strict line of rules to be followed. And then you apply it in a limited situation to come to absurd conclusions. If I went to Mars and saw a red sky I would NOT think something was wrong with my eyes. At least not at first. Because the blue sky color that I'm used to can be explained by the properties of the planet earth, it makes sense that the sky could very well be a different color on Mars. So let me say this one more time. I think that when confronted with a situation of EXTREME improbability based on all the knowledge and experience we have at our disposal(this includes the physics of sky color) we then investigate the truth with the best inductive reasoning we can muster.

What I'm talking about is the manner in which an "investigation" into the unknown takes place. When in the mode of investigation, all options should be left open and the clues looked at openly and then we make a conclusion based on the best knowledge that we have. What I am NOT talking about is a set of rules to follow to call something knowledge or have it included in a textbook. You and I both know that this is all subjective but a line has to be drawn in each situation. In some situations you may actually have enough knowledge to very reasonably suggest that something was designed and not generated by chance. Wether you have enough knowledge to do this could always be wrong but yet you did this very thing when you claimed to have enough knowledge about humans to say I can't levitate things. So what if you actually acquire as much knowledge of Mars? Might you also not be able to apply some judgement here as well,subjective as it is? We can't just ignore the obvious simply because we're going to assume that chance built everything. We don't do this in real life and I don't think we should pretend we do just because we're talking about design.

You see, it can easy be argued that the snowflake's unique property is it's exact shape, which gives it the ability to fit into the hole. You can't make a distinction in that way.

I can't? Why not? You derive the distinction from an interaction with an outside thing which has nothing to do with the formation of the snowflake to begin with. This can be easily distinguished from a snowflake that sings when it has a certain arrangement.

Yes you can - you just said it flies together by chance. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because we have already determined that this is subjective - it is based on what claims you make. And so, we can't expand this as an universal principle.

All it says is that we have to apply judgement based on what we know to all unknown situations. To argue that we should enter the lab with an assumption as opposed to being open to all options ESPECIALLY when you may have some evidence to suggest otherwise just seems irresponsible.

dschou

Aug27-03, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=axiom
"1 a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim "
The existence of god is not generally accepted - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"3 a self-evident statement"
The existence is god is not self-evident - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"4 (Logic) (maths) a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system "
The existence of god is not neccessary - ergo, it is not an axiom.

One might note what this does say - in the mind of the believer, where the assumption of God forms the root of other thoughts, the idea of god is axiomatic and consistent. For one who does not beleive, the assumption of God is arbitary and unneccessary.

this is obviously inconsistent with the argument proposed in a previous correspondance, as i have acknowledged the fallacy of that reasoning in my most recent posting (see above)

"...you got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent..."

until this inconsistency is unraveled or my argument directly rebutted, the claim that existence can be determined objectively or established via an axiom only by rule of general acceptance remains untenable. consequently, future argument along that vein is rendered superfluous (as is your frequent use of the word ergo).

now with regards to your final statement, the one which most strongly reveals your AXIOMATIC post-modernist world-view, it is incumbent on me to reveal some flaws in your position:

1. "only if you believe so", quite wrong. either God exists or he doesn't. if one were to counter that God exists only in my mind, then what is really being stated is that he doesn't exist at all, for anything that exists only in my mind is finite (a finite-subjective mind - Feuerbach) and God is declared infinite by definition of his existence. therefore he cannot exist in my mind, a contradiction. he can only exist as the creator of my mind and outside my mind.

2. post-modernism in general has no real practical application. laws and customs are applied generally, not specifically. likewise, peoples interact on a scale of multitudes, not as individuals. it is therefore impossible to establish norms which fully take into account the notions of individuality since the moral code, which is subscribed to and prescribed by the law, is dependant on personal beliefs. therefore, since post-modernism heeds no ground with respect to its claims for absolute tolerance (which is itself a vacuous concept), and it therefore cannot be applied, it is meaningless and amounts to little more than mere intellectual exercise - but without the benefit of gained wisdom.

merci beaucoup.

some more poetry:

i thank you God for most this amazing
day: for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky; and for everything
which is natural which is infinite which is yes

(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun's birthday; this is the birth
day of life and of love and wings:and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth

how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any - lifted from the no
of all nothing - human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?

(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

-E.E. Cummings

from "100 Selected Poems", Grove Press, New York

dschou

Aug28-03, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Where does your outlook on reality in total begin, if not in acknowledging the fact that you are consciouss, and have consciouss awareness of a world, that exists outside, apart and independend of your mind?

You can't state you yourself do not exist, since you are aware that you are. You could just try the assumption that the world of which you are aware, and that is projected into your mind, would not exist independend, apart and outside of your mind.

the word is independent. note the 't'.

However, then you have the following facts which you can not explain:
- Where did the world come from? If it is said that the world just exists entirely in your mind, and there is nothing outside of it, then what caused the world to exist?
- Why do we have senses, eyes and ears, if the world itself of which we are aware, would only exist in our mind?
- Why do other people/mind exist, and how can they exist outside and apart of our mind, if everything that exists, exist in our mind?
- Why don't we have all knowledge about everything, since everything would exist in our own minds?
- Why don't we have memories about an infinite past, so that it seems the world started from appearently nothing?

Clearly these questions can not be answered, based on our assumption.
We conclude therefore that our assumption that the world itself, would not exist apart, independend and outside of our mind, is wrong.

our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate this to the plane of objectivity. also, be aware that this in no way excludes either my own, or God's existence (refer to my previous post on this matter). rather, i readily profess both my own and God's existence. the conclusions previously drawn regarding this matter of my existence were so drawn in the hopes of revealing the illegitamacy of the views put forth by FZ+, since they necessitated (or at least allowed) my own non-existence with claims of general acceptance being the sole requirement for objective (or axiomatic) existence.

finally, if, supposing that the questions could be answered only (to one's knowledge) by accepting my existence, then this would in no way comprise an objective proof. this is a fundamental axiom of all scientific endeavour: a theory can be verified and generally accepted, but not to the exclusion of all other theories (so long as those theories, which may or may not be known, are consistent with the SUBJECTIVE sensations). for instance (and i do deplore giving inane examples), if two theories explained why the sky was blue, and neither contradicted any data collected by the senses, then either one could be held as true. even if only one theory explained the sky's blueness, it could NOT be held as absolute, thus negating any future hypothesis. so we have it that the now famous questions may be answered conveniently if my existence is assumed, but they do not necessitate it.

This therefore immediately rejects any creator thing. nothing will. stop trying. it is a fruitless endeavour.

FZ+

Aug28-03, 07:14 AM

1. "only if you believe so", quite wrong. either God exists or he doesn't. if one were to counter that God exists only in my mind, then what is really being stated is that he doesn't exist at all, for anything that exists only in my mind is finite (a finite-subjective mind - Feuerbach) and God is declared infinite by definition of his existence. therefore he cannot exist in my mind, a contradiction. he can only exist as the creator of my mind and outside my mind.
It seems that you have missed the main thrust of my argument. You are claiming that God is existent as a self-evident axiom, and thus does not require a deductive proof. Correct? I am saying that by failing to justify your statement that God is axiomatic in an objective sense, all you have said is a case of implication - that if you have a world view founded on the assumption of God's existence, it is natural for God to exist. It is a statement of a belief system - what is fundamentally lacking is the tie that makes it an account of the real world. Consider for example that it is equally valid to make axiomatic, as some have done, that a being such as God cannot exist - this too leads to a consistent world view. Leading to the consideration that this form of argument tells us nothing of the existence of God, but only what you believe in.

heusdens

Aug28-03, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by dschou

our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate this to the plane of objectivity. also, be aware that this in no way excludes either my own, or God's existence (refer to my previous post on this matter). rather, i readily profess both my own and God's existence.
[/b]

You have failed to demonstrate why it would be necessary to assume God. Since we conceive of God as a consciouss entity, how do you know of this 'mind of God' since all you have is your own mind?

You state that awareness of the world, and the projection in the mind, is purely subjective.
If that were the case, then you in fact assume that no such outer reality exists or has to exist.

Where does your awareness about the world then originate in?
From your mind alone?

So, in other words, the world in total would only exist in your subjective awareness of it.

But then explain me this:
- Where does the world come from? It could not have existed always in your mind, since your mind does not have infinite past memories
- Why are there other minds, who claim the same subjectivity as you?
Do these minds exist in the real (objective) sense, or are they all PART of YOUR mind then?
- Why do we have senses? If everything already exists within the mind, what are they good for then?
- Why don't we have all knowledge? If everything already exists within the mind, why wouldn't we have all knowledge?
- How can your mind exist only in subjective form? There are other people who can state the existence of both you, and your mindly awareness. This means your mind and you exist in the objective sense.

the conclusions previously drawn regarding this matter of my existence were so drawn in the hopes of revealing the illegitamacy of the views put forth by FZ+, since they necessitated (or at least allowed) my own non-existence with claims of general acceptance being the sole requirement for objective (or axiomatic) existence.

finally, if, supposing that the questions could be answered only (to one's knowledge) by accepting my existence, then this would in no way comprise an objective proof. this is a fundamental axiom of all scientific endeavour: a theory can be verified and generally accepted, but not to the exclusion of all other theories (so long as those theories, which may or may not be known, are consistent with the SUBJECTIVE sensations). for instance (and i do deplore giving inane examples), if two theories explained why the sky was blue, and neither contradicted any data collected by the senses, then either one could be held as true. even if only one theory explained the sky's blueness, it could NOT be held as absolute, thus negating any future hypothesis. so we have it that the now famous questions may be answered conveniently if my existence is assumed, but they do not necessitate it.
nothing will. stop trying. it is a fruitless endeavour.

You are explaining nothing, you are just presenting us an axiom with no back up, and it explans nothing.

You state that your existence is primary to the world. Well, that is a simple lie, since the world already existed before your existence in mindly form.

Since we do exist in mindly form, and which can be stated in the objective sense, there needs to be a cause for our existence in mindly form.

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.

It is as simple as that!

heusdens

Aug28-03, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.

Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what realy goes on. As I have showed, even in the context of human society the term "creation" does not explain anything.

Now "intend" is also a strange concept.Does the sun "intend" to shine, and emit light? Do atoms and molecules "intend" to combine into more complex forms?

Same as with the word "creation" you can not use the word "intend" to describe anything in nature.

It is usefull only in human communication.
But it does not have an "absolute" meaning, and can not be used outside of the human context.

Wether we act by an outside pulse or drive, that makes us do things, or are aware of our intends, is rather arbitrarily.
We say we "intend" to do things, and sometimes our plan comes out.
But do we know if we "intend" our intentions? Maybe it was some outside force acting on us, we can not make even clear to ourselves.
Even so, we say that we "intended" things, which might not be the case.

The idea that all human made things are a "design" is already wrong.
We don't know what design works and which don't work, so we always progress in small steps, and see which works and which not.

The "design" of anything, is therefore always an interaction with the material reality, and keep those things that work, and reject the things that don't.

What comes out of that after many cycles of "micro creation" and testing, is not what anyone had intended it to be before we started it.

"Intend" and "creation" therefore are simply bad concepts.

Fliption

Aug28-03, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what realy goes on. As I have showed, even in the context of human society the term "creation" does not explain anything.

Wow. Talk about missing the point. I have no problem with the definition of the word "creation" or it's use in this discussion. I was only suggesting that it not be used because we have many undisciplined debaters who loose focus and become irrational(or more irrational in some cases) when they see that word.

The "design" of anything, is therefore always an interaction with the material reality, and keep those things that work, and reject the things that don't.

What comes out of that after many cycles of "micro creation" and testing, is not what anyone had intended it to be before we started it.

"Intend" and "creation" therefore are simply bad concepts. [/B]

This whole speech on "intent" is completely irrelevant to the discussion that's going on here. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter. There's alot more being discussed here than just semantics, Heusdens. Since you are getting bogged down in the words then let me explain it to you without those words. What is being discussed is "how can we distinguish between a thing that exists because willful beings directly influenced it to exist and those that occur through random natural processes?" Whether you call it intent, creation, design or the result of a long plug and chug process, the end result still owes it's existence to a willful being and not the other more random natural forces. Whether the end result was the original intent all along is irrelevant. As long as each step was directly and nonrandomly affected by a will being.

Fliption

Aug28-03, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by heusdens

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.

It is as simple as that! [/B]

This is the problem with this debate. No matter what side you choose you always have to postulate that something either created itself or has always been. The mindly existence you speak of can't create itself, you say. Nothing can create itself then. So now we're stuck with assuming something has always been. And your only reason for assuming this mindly existsnce has not always been is because you don't have all knowledge? Seems like a very narrow view of the possibilities to me.

Just to be clear let me say that I am not one of these people who thinks that the objective world doesn't exists. I am only stepping in because my position is that you can't know one way or the other and have no reason to be so confidently conclusive. All you have is unanswered questions. And if we could make conclusions based on unanswered questions then we can make all sorts of conclusions . Science currently can't explain consciousness for example. So this can be used to make all sorts of mystical claims. But just as the science deacons will tell you....it doesn't mean we want be able to explain it sometime in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket Heusdens because it just might have a hole in it.

heusdens

Aug28-03, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
This is the problem with this debate. No matter what side you choose you always have to postulate that something either created itself or has always been. The mindly existence you speak of can't create itself, you say. Nothing can create itself then. So now we're stuck with assuming something has always been. And your only reason for assuming this mindly existsnce has not always been is because you don't have all knowledge? Seems like a very narrow view of the possibilities to me.

Just to be clear let me say that I am not one of these people who thinks that the objective world doesn't exists. I am only stepping in because my position is that you can't know one way or the other and have no reason to be so confidently conclusive. All you have is unanswered questions. And if we could make conclusions based on unanswered questions then we can make all sorts of conclusions . Science currently can't explain consciousness for example. So this can be used to make all sorts of mystical claims. But just as the science deacons will tell you....it doesn't mean we want be able to explain it sometime in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket Heusdens because it just might have a hole in it.

I agree with you on this.

But to accept the fact that we can't have all knowledge (or absolute knowledge) does not give credit to accepting all kind of myths and supernatural things either.

I merely explain that this does not affect in the least that our ordinary vision of reality is one in which our consciousness is a seconday feature of the world, and that the world itself has been there always.

Science can already explain a lot, but not everything. We have to accept the fact that we have only relative knowledge, and never complete knowledge.

From your consciousness, you can't conclude something else, since that would lead to some or other form of solipsism (assuming the world just exists in the mind and not outside of it).

The introduction of Gods (which we neither can know) isn't very helpfull either, it merely mystificates human reality. Religion assumes an absurd thing, namely absolute knowledge. It makes absolute statements about reality.

Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. For dialectics, the Absolute is only the whole movement through various relative stages of understanding, but the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative.

heusdens

Aug28-03, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
This whole speech on "intent" is completely irrelevant to the discussion that's going on here. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter. There's alot more being discussed here than just semantics, Heusdens. Since you are getting bogged down in the words then let me explain it to you without those words. What is being discussed is "how can we distinguish between a thing that exists because willful beings directly influenced it to exist and those that occur through random natural processes?" Whether you call it intent, creation, design or the result of a long plug and chug process, the end result still owes it's existence to a willful being and not the other more random natural forces. Whether the end result was the original intent all along is irrelevant. As long as each step was directly and nonrandomly affected by a will being.

But that is precisely what I am discussing about.
Nature does not work with total randomness (it only looks that way, since we don't have absolute knowledge), and the human intend and will, is very relative also.

So what looks like an absolute opposite (design or change) in the end comes down to a similar development process.

Humans design a lot, but a lot of what is designed or invented, does not make it in the real world. What decides then what invention is good or not good?
There in most cases so many things involved in design processe of complex things, that there is no way it can be brought back to an individual will or intend. It's the permanent interaction between consciousness and the material world, that is the basis for these kind of development.

dschou

Aug28-03, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
It seems that you have missed the main thrust of my argument. You are claiming that God is existent as a self-evident axiom, and thus does not require a deductive proof. Correct? I am saying that by failing to justify your statement that God is axiomatic in an objective sense, all you have said is a case of implication - that if you have a world view founded on the assumption of God's existence, it is natural for God to exist. It is a statement of a belief system - what is fundamentally lacking is the tie that makes it an account of the real world. Consider for example that it is equally valid to make axiomatic, as some have done, that a being such as God cannot exist - this too leads to a consistent world view. Leading to the consideration that this form of argument tells us nothing of the existence of God, but only what you believe in.

no. that is quite wrong. i have not missed the thrust of your argument. i have dealt with it head on by stating that there is some truth regarding God's existence and that regardless of the (in)consistencies of one's worldview, he either exists or doesn't, but not both. he cannot be relegated to the role of playing schrodinger's cat. i have simply used your original premise - that my existence is likewise axiomatic and dependant on the general acceptance thereof - to show that, had this some truth to it, God's existence could likewise be determined. if you fail to see that, then so be it.

i have ALWAYS maintained that God's existence is by necessity AXIOMATIC and hence it cannot be proven. why must i reiterate this stance time and again? my original post in this thread stated, and i quote:

"God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me."

this is final, as i grow weary of unnecessary argument divergences.

dschou

Aug28-03, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by heusdens

You have failed to demonstrate why it would be necessary to assume God. Since we conceive of God as a consciouss entity, how do you know of this 'mind of God' since all you have is your own mind?

You state that awareness of the world, and the projection in the mind, is purely subjective.
If that were the case, then you in fact assume that no such outer reality exists or has to exist.

Where does your awareness about the world then originate in?
From your mind alone?

So, in other words, the world in total would only exist in your subjective awareness of it.

But then explain me this:
- Where does the world come from? It could not have existed always in your mind, since your mind does not have infinite past memories
- Why are there other minds, who claim the same subjectivity as you?
Do these minds exist in the real (objective) sense, or are they all PART of YOUR mind then?
- Why do we have senses? If everything already exists within the mind, what are they good for then?
- Why don't we have all knowledge? If everything already exists within the mind, why wouldn't we have all knowledge?
- How can your mind exist only in subjective form? There are other people who can state the existence of both you, and your mindly awareness. This means your mind and you exist in the objective sense.

You are explaining nothing, you are just presenting us an axiom with no back up, and it explans nothing.

You state that your existence is primary to the world. Well, that is a simple lie, since the world already existed before your existence in mindly form.

Since we do exist in mindly form, and which can be stated in the objective sense, there needs to be a cause for our existence in mindly form.

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.
It is as simple as that!

Allow me to reiterate the words of our esteemed colleague m. Royce:
"Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden."

this is correct in a magnitude as yet unparallelled in this discussion. i too believe that i exist OBJECTIVELY and INDEPENDANT of other's thoughts. but this belief is a result of speculative and inductive reasoning and does not constitute a proof.

besides, you have sidestepped the issue quite nicely hseudens. we began this thread in the hopes of discussing, to some conclusion, the existence of God, not me. i had hoped that my discussion of my own existence could be adopted as an argumentative statement in response to those made by FZ+, but not as a diversion to my original postulate (see above).

Fliption

Aug28-03, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
But that is precisely what I am discussing about.
Nature does not work with total randomness (it only looks that way, since we don't have absolute knowledge), and the human intend and will, is very relative also.

Exactly how do you define "random"? And then what does it mean to "look random"? And if we don't have absolute knowledge and therefore things look random, how is it that we know enough to say they aren't?

Royce

Aug28-03, 01:12 PM

dschou, I'm afraid that logical inductive or deductive reasoning will not work with our 'esteemed colleagues'. They, as ojective materialist, require objective proof for that which is not even subjective but spiritual and transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. They do this knowing that it is impossible so that they are never proven wrong. They use the same tactics when discussing objectivity vs subjectity or materialism vs idealism.

You pointed out earlier that you did not need to prove the existence of God. I believe that it is impossible to prove God to anyone even another believer. God is ultimately personal and will when we are ready to accept him prove undenialbly his presence to us, individually.

As a logical or philosophical discussion you will only find a few who will debate the issue in a reasonable manner but you must make no assumptions or unsupported statements with out first declaring them as such. You have already been called on such thing a couple of times.

No one, despite their stance, is immune. This is a free-for-all, no- holds-barred, no quarter asked and none given melee. Having said that, welcome to the PF's. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Zero

Aug28-03, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Royce
dschou, I'm afraid that logical inductive or deductive reasoning will not work with our 'esteemed colleagues'. They, as ojective materialist, require objective proof for that which is not even subjective but spiritual and transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. They do this knowing that it is impossible so that they are never proven wrong. They use the same tactics when discussing objectivity vs subjectity or materialism vs idealism.

You pointed out earlier that you did not need to prove the existence of God. I believe that it is impossible to prove God to anyone even another believer. God is ultimately personal and will when we are ready to accept him prove undenialbly his presence to us, individually.

As a logical or philosophical discussion you will only find a few who will debate the issue in a reasonable manner but you must make no assumptions or unsupported statements with out first declaring them as such. You have already been called on such thing a couple of times.

No one, despite their stance, is immune. This is a free-for-all, no- holds-barred, no quarter asked and none given melee. Having said that, welcome to the PF's. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The problem is, you can fill in anything in place of the word 'God' and it is equally valid(or invalid, really). Fairies and elves, leprechauns, compassionate conservatives, and any other myth you can think of.

Royce

Aug28-03, 02:14 PM

or even a logical liberal, reasoning socialist, rational communist or even BH's invisible pink unicorn. Yes that is the problem but adding more mythical creatures into the discussing accomplishes nothing. To discuss or argue a point or thought it is better to keep it a point or single thought. While obfuscation may work other place it doesn't here. We are all familiar with the tactic "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."

FZ+

Aug28-03, 03:17 PM

i have ALWAYS maintained that God's existence is by necessity AXIOMATIC and hence it cannot be proven.
But you see, by this statement, you have invalidated any debate because an axiom is by definition something that is generally accepted - and neccessarily generally accepted. But it is clear that it is not - and so God is an assumption, not an absolute axiom. Note that this says nothing as to a sense of absolute truth - a large number of things are assumptions. This only says we don't know for sure, and thus there is a capacity for discussion. Geddit?

I'm not making an attack on theism at all, I am making a clarification of definitions. By the meaning of the word, god - existence or non-existence - cannot be considered as generally axiomatic.

Never proven wrong, but never proven right - that is the nature of God.

dschou

Aug28-03, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
But you see, by this statement, you have invalidated any debate because an axiom is by definition something that is generally accepted - and neccessarily generally accepted. But it is clear that it is not - and so God is an assumption, not an absolute axiom. Note that this says nothing as to a sense of absolute truth - a large number of things are assumptions. This only says we don't know for sure, and thus there is a capacity for discussion. Geddit?

I'm not making an attack on theism at all, I am making a clarification of definitions. By the meaning of the word, god - existence or non-existence - cannot be considered as generally axiomatic.

Never proven wrong, but never proven right - that is the nature of God.

firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.

secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.

finally, as the existence of God as yet remains within the realm of the unproven, we must discuss not those things which might prove his existence (since i have argued that these do not exist) but we must rather look at the consequences of accepting/rejecting his existence. in this way, a tree may be known by its fruit; if by rejecting his existence certain undeniable effects can be established, than, to deal with these effects, we may induce some unequivocal notions as to his existence. these undeniable effects include, but are not limited to, each one of the questions which hseudens has posed, the very concepts of good/evil and, most notably, life and death.

ps. am i the only one who is mightily attempting to ignore the inane rubbish that dribbles forth from the mouth of zero? (s)he speaks only in half-truths and vague generalizations and simply regurgitates everything that is in pseudo-philosophical vogue.

BoulderHead

Aug28-03, 05:32 PM

*sniff, sniff*
Originally posted by Royce
or even a logical liberal, reasoning socialist, rational communist or even BH's invisible pink unicorn.
I just knew there was a reason why my ears were ringing ! [:D]

Yes that is the problem but adding more mythical creatures into the discussing accomplishes nothing.
I would argue just the opposite, for it serves to remind people that we are actually talking about something extremely vague here which people seem to all have their own different take on. People may think they are speaking of the same thing when only using that three-letter word yet from what I’ve seen no two people share the same notion of what such a thing might be. The reason for this is because the imagination is man’s principle religious faculty (credit to Karen Armstrong). I like to make sure people never lose sight of this.

To discuss or argue a point or thought it is better to keep it a point or single thought. While obfuscation may work other place it doesn't here. We are all familiar with the tactic "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."
Yes, but the primary source of this material comes from people’s imaginations.

FZ+

Aug28-03, 06:32 PM

firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.
Oops. I meant the nature the God argument.

secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.
No it is not.
Let's use some analogies.

Axiom: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an assumption, and it is generally held to be true, and it is neccessary as part of any known mathematical system. Hence it is an axiom, though it cannot be proved.

Assume: Square root of two is rational
This is an assumption, but it is not generally held to be true, it is not neccessary as the alternative exists that root 2 is irrational. Hence it is not an axiom. (in this case, the consistency of the resulting argument has been disproved. In the case of God, it is incomplete.)

Maybe we are just arguing in semantics here, but...

he speaks only in half-truths and vague generalizations and simply regurgitates everything that is in pseudo-philosophical vogue.
It has been informed that he is quite cuddly and happy at times. But such a state is understandably very hard to observe... [;)] If he bothers you too much, ignore him.

Let me just sum up my position:

I believe that significant in the universe exists only relative to an observer.
I believe that chance can account for complex form, and the mind is itself a manifestation of complexity - a holistic existence, rather than a fundamental one. Mankind can therefore be just a branch of that "chance".
I believe that an universe without god is as wholly consistent and logical as an universe without.
I believe that it is impossible to determine absolutely which of the alternatives exists.
Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility of any god, I choose to act on the assumption that god does not exist, because I believe it to be the better way.

Simple as that.

Royce

Aug28-03, 06:35 PM

But by the same reasoning doesn't everything?
Actually I think is more the inability of man to conceive God adequately. We have trouble enough trying to comprehend life or ourselves much less such a thing as God. Even if you do not believe it is beyond our mental ability to conceive apart of what God would be. We are forced to use our imagination and it is alway not up to the task. This is, I think, the main reason why there are so many opinions of what God is or would be if he did exist. Is God everything and everything of him or is God simply the no longer interested creator or is God a personal God who is a part of us all annd individually as well as the creator. The questions are endless. Even more than if he does not exist.

This is why it is such a facinating topic for discussion even while knowing that nothing certain can come of any of it. It at least exercises and stretches our minds.

Are you following me? I can't even make snide remarks hiden deep in other threads. [;)]

BoulderHead

Aug28-03, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Royce
But by the same reasoning doesn't everything?
Perhaps, but it is raised to some degree when dealing with this topic.
Actually I think is more the inability of man to conceive God adequately.
Because we are left to our own devices, think I. In this position what recourse is there but some introspection and a lot of imagination?
We have trouble enough trying to comprehend life or ourselves much less such a thing as God. Even if you do not believe it is beyond our mental ability to conceive apart of what God would be.
Indeed.
We are forced to use our imagination and it is alway not up to the task. This is, I think, the main reason why there are so many opinions of what God is or would be if he did exist.
One million people and likely as many fuzzy ideas.
Is God everything and everything of him or is God simply the no longer interested creator or is God a personal God who is a part of us all annd individually as well as the creator. The questions are endless. Even more than if he does not exist.
For me, projecting human traits into the mind of a god presents more problems than it solves. But being human I cannot think in terms alien to my essential nature. I cannot, for example, imagine what it would be like for a god to posses logic completely alien to my own. In fact, I cannot even imagine god at all, such a concept is completely hidden to my mind.
This is why it is such a facinating topic for discussion even while knowing that nothing certain can come of any of it. It at least exercises and stretches our minds.

To be able to imagine the unimaginable is, to me at least, simply unimaginable. This makes it an exercise in futility, imho, hence my affection for the following;

It is terrible to see a man who has the incomprehensible in his grasp, does not know what to do with it, and sits playing with a toy called God.
-Tolstoy

You see, I have never, despite what some may think, used that quote merely to mock people (although I’m a big fan of humor). The meaning for me runs much deeper than that.

I should explain futher about it being "an exercise in futility", lest I be misunderstood. I'm not saying it shouldn't be attempted, I just believe it is an impossible task.

Are you following me? I can't even make snide remarks hiden deep in other threads. [;)]
No, sorry if it appeared so.

dschou

Aug29-03, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
Oops. I meant the nature the God argument.

No it is not.
Let's use some analogies.

Axiom: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an assumption, and it is generally held to be true, and it is neccessary as part of any known mathematical system. Hence it is an axiom, though it cannot be proved.

Assume: Square root of two is rational
This is an assumption, but it is not generally held to be true, it is not neccessary as the alternative exists that root 2 is irrational. Hence it is not an axiom. (in this case, the consistency of the resulting argument has been disproved. In the case of God, it is incomplete.)
the examples are flawed. firstly, 1+1 = 2 is not an axiom. the axiom employed is more general and is related to the closure of integers under addition as well as the definition of the number system. secondly, that the rationality of the square root of two is not an axiom depends not at all on whether it is accepted as such. it is not an axiom for at least two reasons:
1. it is based on at least 3 other mathematical axioms
2. it is completely inconsistent with the axioms on which it is based, yielding an inconsistent mathematical framework (and thus it can be disproven)

an axiom is a fundamental assumption which defines, in a logical sequence, a consistent framework (and i do think we are arguing semantics here. yet in some cases the entire foundation of the thing being discussed rests on the razor-edge support of semantics).

Let me just sum up my position:

I believe that significant in the universe exists only relative to an observer.
I believe that chance can account for complex form, and the mind is itself a manifestation of complexity - a holistic existence, rather than a fundamental one. Mankind can therefore be just a branch of that "chance".
I believe that an universe without god is as wholly consistent and logical as an universe without.
I believe that it is impossible to determine absolutely which of the alternatives exists.
Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility of any god, I choose to act on the assumption that god does not exist, because I believe it to be the better way.

Simple as that.

i appreciate the use of the word belief, as it is entirely a belief system. you have CHOSEN to DISBELIEVE God and hence have followed your own mind as your absolute overseer - which will lead you to the worst absurdities imaginable - but still, you have not taken the fatal error of a great many atheists in attempting to disprove God's existence. however, God's existence depends not one iota on your acceptance of it, and, as you are most certainly incorrect in your stance (and deliberately, i might add) you will be brought to account with respect to this matter. therefore, allow me to repeat myself (once again):

"finally, as the existence of God as yet remains within the realm of the unproven, we must discuss not those things which might prove his existence (since i have argued that these do not exist) but we must rather look at the consequences of accepting/rejecting his existence. in this way, a tree may be known by its fruit; if by rejecting his existence certain undeniable effects can be established, than, to deal with these effects, we may induce some unequivocal notions as to his existence. these undeniable effects include, but are not limited to, each one of the questions which hseudens has posed, the very concepts of good/evil and, most notably, life and death."

FZ+

Aug29-03, 01:18 PM

an axiom is a fundamental assumption which defines, in a logical sequence, a consistent framework
That's not in any dictionary I read. The world generally accepted, self-evident and neccessary are used there.

you have CHOSEN to DISBELIEVE God
No. I have chosen not to believe in God, because I consider it's existence at present irrelevant.

hence have followed your own mind as your absolute overseer
No. I have found no evidence that an absolute overseer can even exist. In fact, all observations work against it.

which will lead you to the worst absurdities imaginable
Such as? If we do call the existence of God axiomatic, as you attempt to do, I can label the consequences of God's existence similarly absurd - as it contravenes my fundamental axiom. That is, in your terms, a fatal error. But choosing the positive belief of a specific God is also a "fatal error" in that way.

however, God's existence depends not one iota on your acceptance of it
Nor does god's non-existence. Note one thing here - your personal declaration of God, existence or not, is completely meaningless in any argument. You, while giving a sensible response on one hand, have committed the classic flaw of commiting your personal subjectivity as an absolute fact. While X or Y position cannot be proved, absolutism can.

as you are most certainly incorrect in your stance (and deliberately, i might add) you will be brought to account with respect to this matter.
You see, the one thing of clarity from all that you have said is that such certainty is immediately unfounded. There is no basis for such an exclamation, and you know it.

When you talk about the consequences of God - consider which God. And consider which godless reality.

Zero

Aug29-03, 01:36 PM

Don't you just love the thinly veiled threat in that post, FZ+? He seems to be saying "You will burn, infidel, for denying the truth!!Mwahaha!!"

On the other hand, lacking belief is things that don't seem to exist is perfectly reasonable.

dschou

Aug29-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
That's not in any dictionary I read. The world generally accepted, self-evident and neccessary are used there.

fine. to avoid clouding the real issue, i shall henceforth use the term "fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses"

No. I have found no evidence that an absolute overseer can even exist. In fact, all observations work against it.

yet you must live your life. each day you are faced with decisions, and ultimately, those decisions are made (even if they are not made, a decision not to make them has been made). in the end, your absolute overseer is the thing which precipitates your decision making process. thus an absolute overseer does exist and either you believe in God's existence, or you denounce any such existance and depend on your own self-governance.

Such as? If we do call the existence of God axiomatic, as you attempt to do, I can label the consequences of God's existence similarly absurd - as it contravenes my fundamental axiom. That is, in your terms, a fatal error. But choosing the positive belief of a specific God is also a "fatal error" in that way.

on the contrary. you can ignore God and scorn his existence but you can never rightly disprove it, as you yourself have previously agreed to.

Nor does god's non-existence. Note one thing here - your personal declaration of God, existence or not, is completely meaningless in any argument. You, while giving a sensible response on one hand, have committed the classic flaw of commiting your personal subjectivity as an absolute fact. While X or Y position cannot be proved, absolutism can.

thats just it. my personal opinion regarding God's existence is meaningless, just as yours to the contrary is as well. nevertheless, God either exists, or he doesn't and hence, we are directed to look for consequences of this fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses.

You see, the one thing of clarity from all that you have said is that such certainty is immediately unfounded. There is no basis for such an exclamation, and you know it.

exactement. i have stated this originally ("you must believe it...").

When you talk about the consequences of God - consider which God. And consider which godless reality.
there is either one God or no gods since God is by nature all powerful. and there is only one reality, of which we will all at sometime come to understand.

my first post in this forum was typed in full enthusiasm, with the (since revealed as false) idealism that i could effect some change in the opinions of the readers. it is disheartening, to say the least, to hear responses which continue, without pause or reproach, to utter what has been uttered now for millenia by the hearts of man. some small change in thought patterns, some minute - almost imperceptible - adjustment of bias, that is all i have wanted. but alas, the prospect of change for the better is but the opiate of my mind and is not meant to be. i therefore bid the interested parties adieau, as this will be my last correspondance in this thread.

till we meet on the ramparts,
with all grace and respect,
dschou

Zero

Aug29-03, 02:21 PM

Belief in deities IS self-governance, really, since there are no gods making laws, and you choose to follow what you choose to believe in.

FZ+

Aug29-03, 02:39 PM

in the end, your absolute overseer is the thing which precipitates your decision making process.
Then, to use your word I have an absolute overseer. But it's nature is not absolute. My non-absolute absolute overseer is my subjective view of the world - what I see. I do not govern myself, because "Me" does not have an absolute existence. I am part of the world and merely exist as part of the world. As there is no evidence for absolute, one way government.

on the contrary. you can ignore God and scorn his existence but you can never rightly disprove it, as you yourself have previously agreed to.
And you can never prove it, as you have failed to remember. In this way, a certainty in God is a fatal error - in precisely the same way a certainty in no god is.

my personal opinion regarding God's existence is meaningless, just as yours to the contrary is as well.
Strange, but you again seem to have forgotten what my point of view is. My point of view is that WE DON'T KNOW. This is far from meaningless. Your point of view is that we do (and not just that. We "certainly" know), and this is meaningless without justification.

exactement. i have stated this originally ("you must believe it...").
And yet you choose to flaunt it my making the meaninglessly absolute assertion that I "am wrong, and will be held accountable."

there is either one God or no gods since God is by nature all powerful.
Strange, but that by talking about God's "nature", you already assume it exists. Thus breaching your original statement again. As you said yourself.
And God as all poweful does not proclude the existence of a set of Gods.

But the actual point I make is rather different. I am saying that while you pick and choose your God (why Yahweh, for example, and not Anubis) to fit in the gaps of reality, and hence allow the God based framework to take any number of claims, you ignore that you are simultaneous denying the existence of all other Gods. And that by assuming that no-god gives only one set of consequences (which you assert is absurd), you have failed to give reality itself the flexibility (as we do not know the whole of reality, and never will) you grant your possibilities of gods. That, when forming your consequence idea, you must first determine what God can do that reality can't.

No easy job.

it is disheartening, to say the least, to hear responses which continue, without pause or reproach, to utter what has been uttered now for millenia by the hearts of man.
One might note rather cynically that it is you who have been giving quotes from (presumeably) ancient scriptures.[;)]