The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice

[Fliption]

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]

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+]

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 let's 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 anyone 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 necessary is to establish the latter ones.

 

[Fliption]

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 let's 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 anyone 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 a lot 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 necessary 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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+]

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 anyone 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 a lot 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]

----------------------------------------------
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 existence 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 anyone 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+]

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 necessary - 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]

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 existence 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 anyone 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]

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 knowledge 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]

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]

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 necessary - 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]

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+]

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]

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]

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 really 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]

Originally posted by heusdens
Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what really 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 a lot 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]

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]

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]

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 a lot 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 without 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]

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 without 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.