|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
 Posted - 12/27/2002 : 23:53:54 [Permalink]
|
> Secondly,unless I'm mistaken doesn't light have what appear to be
> "contradictory characteristics"(wave vs particle)?
Not exactly. Light, when measured by certain instruments designed to detect wave properties, appears to behave, under certain conditions, as if its energy were waves. When measured by other instruments designed to detect the motion of particles, it behaves, under certain conditions, as if it were particles in motion. |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2002 : 09:52:38 [Permalink]
|
Antie states: quote:
Not exactly. Light, when measured by certain instruments designed to detect wave properties, appears to behave, under certain conditions, as if its energy were waves. When measured by other instruments designed to detect the motion of particles, it behaves, under certain conditions, as if it were particles in motion.
(emp.mine) That's what I stated in my original comment,it appears to have what to us or our instruments contradictory propirties.As to the relevance to Phd's philosophical musings it merely points out that "there are more things in heaven and earth that appear in your philosophy,Horatio". |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/28/2002 09:53:35 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2002 : 10:26:20 [Permalink]
|
False analogy. You can demonstrate and observe these properties of light.
God is only a character in a book. Neither we nor our instruments can detect any gods as this book is a work of fiction.
And the Hamlet quote was only an actor trying to get the audience to suspend disbelief in a "ghost" who just was on stage clanking his armor and supplying plot exposition. Another work of fiction. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2002 : 19:43:04 [Permalink]
|
Sorry for butting into this thread halfway into the discussion.
Ignoring mytholgical and religious aspects of the situation for a moment, one can I think see the problem esiest if one looks at it from a mathematcal point of view.
Many definition of God include infinites like saying that God is omnipotent (all-powerfull) or omniscient (all-knowing). Those are not a problem in and on themself. But you get a poblem very fast when you aply those concepts on God itself. Selfreferencing and absolute all-including defintions like those lead to a paradox.
Best known popular example of this is probably the questions about "What would happen if an irresistable force met an unmovable object?" or "Can God make a stone so havy that he can not lift it?"
Normally we would just correct our definitions into ones that make sense. Changing all-powerfull into most-powerfull would solve this paticular problem for the definition of God for example. But unfortunatley believers can't do that and won't do that.
The whole things gets a lot of worse for omniscience because knowledge turned out to work a whole lot different than the ancients who came up withe the idea of omniscience thought.
The Strange thing is that many of the Pagan gods don't suffer from these problems because they were never defiend so limitless. Their existence is still contradicted by observation, but at least their very idea does not lead to a paradox. |
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 09:45:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html
Accessed 10/04/01
*****
Antony Flew
Theology and Falsification: A Golden Jubilee Celebration (2000)
*****
THEOLOGY AND FALSIFICATION
Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revelatory article 'Gods'.[1] Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they, set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not he seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"
This parable describes the problem stated by Slater's post. To every other relgious viewpoint other than NT Christianty it accuretly describes the problem of "God Talk". In NT Christianty "God takes on a human nature" and verifies the "God Talk" (Jn.1:1-18). The "gardner" is recognized Jn.20:14-16 and we can know that recognizing the Son we have also "seen the Father". |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 12:11:11 [Permalink]
|
How many months now have we been talking about the Hellenistic roots of Christianity? How can you claim uniqueness to a god taking on human nature when all we have been dealing with are god/men?
Also the NT isn't verifying a thing.
In the above parable the deluded explorer decides that there is a garden in the jungle. He decides this based on casual observation and his own imagination. To see if this conclusion is indeed a fact he puts it to a series of tests…fence, bloodhounds. Now the only reason to test something is to check if you initial conclusion is correct. If the tests come out negative you must revise your initial assertion. That's not only basic science, it's basic honesty. Frankly it's basic sanity.
I assert that there are bagels in the coffee room. I put this assertion to the test. I go to the coffee room and look around. The result of this test…no bagels. But I really, REALLY, want a bagel. If I insist that the bagels are here but no one can see them, or smell them, or touch them that would not be a sane, or honest, thing to do. I would have to admit that there were no bagels, no matter how hungry I am.
Same rules of honesty apply to god as apply to bagels.
The NT is making an assertion…just as the first explorer in the parable was making an assertion. The assertion it makes cannot be verified. If asked you cannot prove that there is a god. You cannot say that there is a god because the bible claims it any more than you can claim there is a gardener because the explorer said that there was.
In the parable if they were sitting there observing and Harry the gardener strolled up and started mulching the strangler vines that would have verified the assertion. When the assertion isn't verified the asserter changes the assertion until it is non-verifiable.
However non-verifiable assertions are completely meaningless and aren't worth consideration because the person who is making them has no way of knowing if they are true. A person who claims to know something is a fact, that they have no way of knowing is a fact, is a liar.
To claim that you know there is a god is immoral.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 17:59:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars_H
The Strange thing is that many of the Pagan gods don't suffer from these problems because they were never defiend so limitless. Their existence is still contradicted by observation, but at least their very idea does not lead to a paradox.
Why would that be "Strange"? As a human construct/projection, I would expect God(s) to be simpler, i.e. more primitive, in more primitive times.
Also, might it not be more correct to say that their existence 'is still not supported by observation'? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2002 : 18:33:20 [Permalink]
|
Gentlemen, I hereby request you cease and desist forthwith from trying to turn this thread in to yet another variation on the Hysterical Jebus phenomenon. You have a ready-made thread for that. Several, in fact.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 09:54:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Gentlemen, I hereby request you cease and desist forthwith from trying to turn this thread in to yet another variation on the Hysterical Jebus phenomenon.
OK, I therefore hereby respectfully ask: - who is "trying to turn this thread in to yet another variation on the Hysterical Jebus phenomenon", and
- what does "the Hysterical Jebus phenomenon" mean?
BTW, do you continue to assert that - "The word "God" is apparently a name. Why else would it be capitalized and used sans article?
Capitalization "sans article" seems like a curiously frail foundation for a theory of extrapolated or approximated concepts.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 13:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
OK, I therefore hereby respectfully ask: who is "trying to turn this thread in to yet another variation on the Hysterical Jebus phenomenon",
DA and Slater seem to be able to discuss little else other than the veracity of the events in the Bible as recorded. I do not consider that relevant to the topic at hand.
quote:
and what does "the Hysterical Jebus phenomenon" mean?
Just a little joke to indicate my exasperation at the extent that particular topic can be rehashed.
quote:
BTW, do you continue to assert that "The word "God" is apparently a name. Why else would it be capitalized and used sans article?" Capitalization "sans article" seems like a curiously frail foundation for a theory of extrapolated or approximated concepts.
I am simply attempting to differentiate between a god, many of which manifest physically, and God, which apparently does not. The grammar itself is not integral - the concept represented is.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 13:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
I am simply attempting to differentiate between a god, many of which manifest physically, and God, which apparently does not. The grammar itself is not integral - the concept represented is.
No, you were seeking to differentiate between a god, many of which may manifest in a noncontradictory manner, and God, which you define as contradictory. The issue is not grammar, but semantics - you take the word 'God' (sans article) and, like Humpty Dumpty, pay it extra to mean what you want it to mean. But, since you now have us playing on the other side of the looking glass, let me ask you a question: Is the concept "logical contradiction" a 'concrete thing', an 'abstract thing', or something else? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 15:33:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No, you were seeking to differentiate between a god, many of which may manifest in a noncontradictory manner, and God, which you define as contradictory.
I do no such thing. I am simply trying to reconcile common attributes of the alleged concept "God" with attributes of known concepts. I do not wish to make any a priori implications.
quote:
The issue is not grammar, but semantics - you take the word 'God' (sans article) and, like Humpty Dumpty, pay it extra to mean what you want it to mean.
If it means something other than what I believe it means, those who hold to an alternate meaning should be able to describe the concept so that I can also conceive of it. So far, nothing doing.
quote:
But, since you now have us playing on the other side of the looking glass, let me ask you a question: Is the concept "logical contradiction" a 'concrete thing', an 'abstract thing', or something else?
It is an attribute, rather than a separate concept. An alleged thing can be described as logically contradictory or non-logically contradictory. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2003 : 16:40:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
If it means something other than what I believe it means, those who hold to an alternate meaning should be able to describe the concept so that I can also conceive of it
Who made up that rule? I am not responsible for what you can or cannot conceive. You apparently believe that 'God' means/implies something beyond serving as the singular form of 'gods'. Why? Apparently because it's capitalized and, of course, sans article. I have seen, and you have offered, nothing to suggest that this definition is anything other than idiosyncratic. Feel free to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
It is an attribute, rather than a separate concept. An alleged thing can be described as logically contradictory or non-logically contradictory.
An alledged thing can be described as finite or infinite. Therefore?
quote:
Initially posted by PhDreamer
I take it a priori true that abstract things are always representative of either existing concrete things or potential concrete things.
Does that not mean that you hold the primacy of the a posteriori as an a priori truth? Curiouser and curiouser ... 
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 01/01/2003 16:43:06 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 08:28:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamerquote:
Originally posted by Boron10
What's your beef with infinity? I guess this ties back to my first questions....
Understand, I'm not a math theorist so this is probably all wrong... I don't know if infinity is actually what we think it is because we lack the system to describe it. We have mathematics that gives weird answers sometimes, like division by zero, non-terminating, non-repeating decimals. We say an asymptote can only get infinitely close to a reference line, but we have to say that because our system fundamentally can't deal with asymptotes. We use the word "infinity" to mean, "something that happens when we plot an asymptote but that we can't observe."
And more:quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamerquote:
Originally posted by Boron10
Anyway, I don't think the two concepts are analogous, but I'm not yet sure why. I don't think they are, either. Infinity is a number (actually, infinity is an entire class of numbers, but we probably don't need to get into that), god is a mythical entity.
If you are correct about infinity being an actual number, then my entire premise is superfluous.
"Infinity" is not an actual number; it is the name given to the hypothetical/theoretical entity [or: "entities"??] which drops out of its definition. Infinity, on the other hand, is treated as if it were a number and arithmetic is done with infinities. (E.g., "Five times Infinity = Infinity"; "Infinity squared = Infinity" )
Having identified one such thing ("Infinity"), it seemed reasonable that there might be a second. There was/is: The second "infinity" was found by raising "Infinity" to the "Infinity" power (i.e., multiplying "Infinity" by itself an infinite number of times). Since they had now identified two infinities, it seemed reasonable, of course, that. . . . And so "now you know the rest of the story": There was defined an entire class of infinities (--"class" being a technical word).
It is so, as Boron10 pointed out, that the mathematician Gorge Cantor codified all of this into a new branch of Mathematics called Set Theory-----a field which has, itself, branched into several other branches of "Modern" Mathematics (such as Topology, Analysis, Geometry, Differential Equations, etc.): "Set Theory" (and infinities) are everywhere, everywhere, in Mathematics (and in Mathematical Physics). 
What Boron10 didn't tell you, PhDreamer, is that at about the turn of the Twentieth Century, the World's premier Mathematician declared that "Set Theory is a disease from which Mathematics will eventually recover."!! There are a small number of purist Mathematicans (e.g. Paul Erdos) who seem to study with this suggestion (--wishful hope??--) in mind.
(Although somewhat in agreement, particularily with regard to the infintessimal, as a follower of the edicts of Probability Theory, (---called by many a mere specialization of Measure Theory which, itself, is a portion of Mathematical Analysis---), I have been able to stay far outside of this entire argument.)
____________________________________________
I wholeheartedly agree, PhDreamer, with your views on the capitalization of "God", for the reasons given in my much, much earlier postings to this thread.
___________________________________________
Edited to fix botched forum code; to add minor clarifications; and to remove an unseemly sarcasm.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 01/27/2003 09:50:51 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
