The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?

[DaveC426913]

And I disagree with your baseless assertion. When all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there's nothing special about being human. We are simply the pinacle of one particular branch of an evolutionary tree. We simply posses the most complex brain of any animal we know. Those complexities give rise to delusions of self-importance, such as the belief that our existence must be guided or pre-ordained by a god or gods.

There is nothing special about humans compared to the rest of life, but humans still spend a lot of time discussing it.

You and jj and I are just as human as everyone else, or you'd be speaking only when data analysis were required.

I understand, but do not sympathize with, your feelings that "there must be more."

I didn't say there was, I said humans spend a lot of time thinking about it. Because you and I don't does not change that.

 

[pftest]

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

Ive seen this one before, but i don't think there is some mutually exclusive relation between the existence of math and the existence of a conscious being (aka god). For example, we are conscious beings and we do math, so that is an example we can extrapolate from. And if it were a fact that our bodies were governed by equations, that would not make us any less conscious. Equations by themselves are abstractions and necessarily dependant on a conscious being that can do math. So it is clear that the statement "material body X (for example the universe) behaves according to an equation" does not imply "material body X is not conscious and not influenced conscious forces".

If it were really so that an equation could describe the entire universe, then that seems to match perfectly with platonic idealism (the view that all reality consists of ideas), which is about as godly as can get.

And I disagree with your baseless assertion. When all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there's nothing special about being human. We are simply the pinacle of one particular branch of an evolutionary tree. We simply posses the most complex brain of any animal we know. Those complexities give rise to delusions of self-importance, such as the belief that our existence must be guided or pre-ordained by a god or gods.

There is a strange contradiction in this reasoning. On the one hand it is supposed that there is nothing special about being human, yet on the other hand it is supposed that human beings (and some animals), are the only things in the universe that have such delusions of self importance. In other words, by this very reasoning, there is something special about being human: having delusions of self importance, aka being conscious.

 

[Routaran]

I think the question of the existence of god or something else that fits that description is within the realm of science.

Take ether for example. At one point we beleived that this substance existed and was the medium in which light travelled. then we devised an experiment and tested to see if it was true and it wasnt. so we ended up modifying the definition of light to one which didnt require ether and as a result gained a better understanding of it.

now we don't have an explanation of how this universe came to be to test. if and when we do, then science is what will confirm or falsify the initial assumption because, as far as i know, we have no other objective way to describe and evaluate what we observe.

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

i would suggest to the world that we all take a page out of science. admit when you are wrong and be willing to change what you think in light of evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would modify that statement a bit. Its not that there are "no mysteries." Rather, there are so many mysteries that we hardly need to invent new ones.

The belief in a God is based in large part on personal experiences. While the notion of a God may have been invented, belief requires more. People believe these things because they perceive that it improves their life when they do.

There is no unified theory yet, but we certainly won't get one if we muck about with superstition and religion.

And a TOE, if it ever comes, will come from once-in-a-generation mind. I doubt that church will get in the way. There is no cause and effect here. I dare say that military spending and social programs are a far greater threat to fundamental research, than religion.

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

Neither if you wish to believe in a God. My point was that we don't know that existence can be fully explained. You would have us think it can. There are even scientists who have seemingly given up on a TOE.

Its a hypothetical question, but see if you can answer it honestly and without dodging the core of the question.

Lose the attitude or you will be banned. I will not tolerate any more personal insults.

 

[DaveC426913]

Lose the attitude or you will be banned. I will not tolerate any more personal insults.

Despite my own history with Flex, I didn't perceive any insult, personal or otherwise here. I thought he was simply tabling a purely intellectual challenge-experiment. Maybe I didn't get the import of the backstory in that discussion though.

 

[FlexGunship]

The belief in a God is based in large part on personal experiences. While the notion of a God may have been invented, belief requires more. People believe these things because they perceive that it improves their life when they do.

Can't argue with that. Reasonable. I would even add that people believe these things because they perceive that it increases their understanding of their experiences.

And a TOE, if it ever comes, will come from once-in-a-generation mind. I doubt that church will get in the way. There is no cause and effect here. I dare say that military spending and social programs are a far greater threat to fundamental research, than religion.

Hmm, we could probably agree on that. I suppose the discovery of it wouldn't be hampered, but widespread adopting (sic. Evolution) might be slowed.

Lose the attitude or you will be banned. I will not tolerate any more personal insults.

Yikes! No insult intended. I was just trying to get the question out and into the field of play while (hopefully) dodging some of the detail-picking that happens.

Send me a PM with instructions on how you'd like it edited.

 

[FlexGunship]

Despite my own history with Flex, I didn't perceive any insult, personal or otherwise here. I thought he was simply tabling a purely intellectual challenge-experiment. Maybe I didn't get the import of the backstory in that discussion though.

Yes, this. No backstory intended or existing (as far as I know). I've been trying to keep clean. Maybe I genuinely don't understand the posting rules.

Glad to admit I first joined this party like a pirate swinging on a chandeleir, but I fancied myself to have evolved into a welcome guest at this dinner lately.

 

[disregardthat]

If you follow those rules there is no way to disprove the existence of a non-existent thing. Ever. Under any circumstances

You can disprove the existence of logically impossible things. By virtue of being logically impossible they cannot exist. A thing may is logically impossible if its properties contradict each other, for example a rock with a weight and volume which does not correspond to its density. This is a priori impossible, since density is defined as the ratio between weight and volume.

 

[JaredJames]

You can disprove the existence of logically impossible things. By virtue of being logically impossible they cannot exist. A thing may is logically impossible if its properties contradict each other, for example a rock with a weight and volume which does not correspond to its density. This is a priori impossible, since density is defined as the ratio between weight and volume.

Mass, not weight. The weight of an object is different on the Earth and the Moon, yet the density / mass / volume of an object will remain constant.

Sorry to be picky, but it's a common thing I see and it bugs the hell out of me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can't argue with that. Reasonable. I would even add that people believe these things because they perceive that it increases their understanding of their experiences.



Hmm, we could probably agree on that. I suppose the discovery of it wouldn't be hampered, but widespread adopting (sic. Evolution) might be slowed.



Yikes! No insult intended. I was just trying to get the question out and into the field of play while (hopefully) dodging some of the detail-picking that happens.

Send me a PM with instructions on how you'd like it edited.

Its a hypothetical question, but see if you can answer it honestly and without dodging the core of the question.

This implies that I would do otherwise without your motivations. As I said, your attitude is the problem. No one needs you to tell them to be honest or not to dodge the question. Just make your points and leave out the personal commentary. This is your last warning.

I have already cut you more slack than I should, or normally would, because you obviously have a lot to contribute. But personal commentary of this nature is strickly forbidden. Never make it personal. That's as plain as I know how to say it.

 

[FlexGunship]

Never make it personal. That's as plain as I know how to say it.

Okay. Ill edit the post. I didn't mean "you" as a specific person. Just the "you" that refers to any reader.

I will change it to "one" for added clarity.

EDIT: I couldn't edit that post for some reason. There might be a limit on how old it can be. Sorry for the delay. I had to find a computer. I'm still traveling and the mobile version of this site doesn't seem to allow editing.