|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2005 : 01:40:07 [Permalink]
|
It is not a question of whether God could or should exist, but more a case of there being no supporting evidence for his existence.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of there not being a diety.
In order to accept the existence of a diety on evidence currently advanced, it would take the disengaging of the logic part of the brain.
Can a scientist function adequately (or his conclusions be trusted) under those circumstances?
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 03:33:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Right, so likewise if we analyse the statement "There is a God." subjectively then there is no need to support it with evidence.
I fail to see how "There is a god" can be a subjective opinion in the same manner I fail to see how "I am the King of France" can be a subjective opinion.
Hmmm... well consider how you would answer the person who says that they fail to see how "I can make a difference" can be a subjective opinion in the same manner that they fail to see how "I can transmute lead into gold" can be a subjective opinion.quote:
Neither is an "opinion" in any sense of the word. They are statements about objective reality and they must be weighed as such. Subjective means you can like Suzie instead of Debra. Objective would be claiming that Suzie does not exist. One is a statement of personal tastes. One is a statement about the state of reality.
Well ultimately all statements, even statements about personal taste, are statements about objective reality. It is our limited ability to proccess objective reality that makes subjective statements useful. In many cases, especially when context is lacking, a statement can be legitimately interpreted either way.quote:
quote:
It's also possible for one person to believe in God while another does not.
But not without someone being wrong right now. One must be wrong.
True, but the point is that the same goes for the statement, "I can make a difference."quote:
So, one of those views cannot be logically held at the present time.
It is possible to logically arrive at a wrong conclusion. But yeah, objectively one of them has to be wrong.quote:
Reason dictates that you evaluate the claims to find the most reasonable. If you decide to believe "god exists," you've done so by chucking out the scientific world-view.
Since science doesn't specifically prohibit the existence of a deity why would it be nessessary to throw out the scientific world-view?quote:
Liking Suzie instead of Debra does not require such a compromise of interests. It forces no such choice.
Only because the scientific world-view was never assumed to be a part of the question of who likes who to begin with.quote:
The difference between the two examples are so clear to me that I'm having trouble understanding how you can see them differently.
I'm actually playing devil's advocate with the "There is a God" statement, in an effort to illustrate a deeper point.
Okay, the bottom line is that we're talking about two very different ways of thinking. For convenience we've been calling them 'objective' and 'subjective'. You have strong opinions (as do I) about which statements should be considered under an objective framework and which should be considered under a subjective framework. But what is your basis for choosing the framework. For example, why do you insist that the statement, "I can make a difference." must be considered under the subjective framework?
To be clear I do actually believe that you've choosen the correct framework for evaluating the two statements in question, but I can also see how someone might choose differently. In such a case (since they would be reasoning under a different framework) we would have no basis for challenging the conclusion that was reached.quote:
I'm saying using two different ways of thinking is the conflict.
Well nobody thinks about absolutely everything in exactly the same way. You yourself think about some statements objectively and some statements subjectively. Do you find that this causes conflicts?quote:
Often when they are trained upon the same subject, they do not agree. That means one is wrong. You need to make a choice about which one you will employ in your life.
It is possible apply both in your life. There will naturally be situations in which one method of thinking will be more appropriate to the situation than the other.quote:
Saying the two different ways of thinking suddenly no longer conflict when we simply prevent them from focusing upon the same subject is totally disingenuous.
But this is not what I was saying. Yes on a practical level we do need to decide how to decide. But the point I was making is that the two ways of thinking have no common basis for a comparison.quote:
The conflict is there whether one decides to personally address it or not.
Personally I find them to be more complementary than conflicting. But you're right, on occasion they will conflict. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 12:00:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hmmm... well consider how you would answer the person who says that they fail to see how "I can make a difference" can be a subjective opinion in the same manner that they fail to see how "I can transmute lead into gold" can be a subjective opinion.
Part of the difference is the specificity of the two statements.
Lead_to_gold is very specific, while a_difference is not. If you were to say, for example, "I can make a difference in how many people get out and vote in my district this election." it now much more closely resembles the "lead_to_gold" statement.
The difference in specificity is what makes them such different statements and lets us call one objective and the other subjective. It comes down to a difference in how precisely we can evaluate the statements.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 12:14:37 [Permalink]
|
| We should create AI bots to conduct all research, only data may be interpreted. Then the assassin bot would kill those we disagree with. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 12:29:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Part of the difference is the specificity of the two statements.
Lead_to_gold is very specific, while a_difference is not. If you were to say, for example, "I can make a difference in how many people get out and vote in my district this election." it now much more closely resembles the "lead_to_gold" statement.
The difference in specificity is what makes them such different statements and lets us call one objective and the other subjective. It comes down to a difference in how precisely we can evaluate the statements.
I agree, although, as you said, there is more to it than just the specificity of the two statements.
We bring our own assumptions and previous experiences to the table when we try to understand a statement. Most of us have probably heard the "I can make a difference" statement or a variation of it used as a motivational slogan, so when we read the phrase we tend to provide a context for it based on our previous experience with the phrase. Essentially we interprete the phrase as shorthand for, "It is generally better to assume that I can make a difference, than to assume I can't."
The phrase "I can transmute lead into gold" tends to bring to mind the foolishness of the alchemists. It also can more difficult, because of its specifity, to interpret it subjectively. Nonetheless it is possible to establish a context in which it could be interpreted subjectively. It could be intended as irony, or wishful thinking for example. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 10:59:37 [Permalink]
|
| And hence we have wars! |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 23:51:53 [Permalink]
|
I've been away on a business trip, so I apologize for the long delay in my reply. I'll skip straight to the important stuff...quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
This is the closest you've come to acknowledging what I've been driving at. It does come down to basic epistemologies. A scientist, a good one anyway, accepts what would be termed "methodological naturalism" (I'm sure you're familar with this phrase) for the purposes of his work. It is the lens through which he views the world in all scientific endeavors. As a scientist, he should be well-positioned to understand the value of such a world-view. Without it, as you have rightly pointed out to beskeptigal, science would be impossible. There would be no yardstick by which to measure reality. No claim could ever be evaluated or tested.
However, a theistic scientist then comes home from work and discards the very principles which give his professional efforts any significance whatsoever. He rejects all ideas of evidence, testiblity, probabilty, and lunges headlong into a belief that there is a thing which exists that, if it exists, renders his professional principles meaningless. That is a conflict.quote:
For example, no amount of science can answer the question "is what I experience real, or am I stuck in the middle of a massive computer simulation?" The answer that it makes no difference so long as I can't do anything about it, may be "pragmatic," but it is a non-answer from a scientific viewpoint. If the simulation possibility is entertained at all, then no amount of evidence can be brought to bear that I am physically typing this post. Similarly for "Last Thursdayism," wherein we posit a malicious and lying god who created everything last Thursday, implanted all our memories, and created 14 billion years' worth of starlight "in transit." Every possible piece of evidence which might be used to counter such an idea was itself created by the same lying god, and so does nothing to disprove the notion.
Precisely my point! Adopting the "scientific viewpoint" means adopting more than just what science can tell us, it means adopting the principles which make science possible. It is those principles which allow us to reject the Matrix theory and last-thursdayism.
Then you've misunderstood me. The "Matrix theory" (especially) doesn't need to be rejected by anyone, since it doesn't conflict with science at all!
If we're living in a Matrix, then the Matrix is objective reality, and science becomes the study of the Matrix and its rules. And if we're not living in a Matrix, science is still the study of objective reality and its rules. Whether or not there is a Matrix is something science cannot test, and it has no effect upon the pratice of science. None whatsoever.
Until, of course, somebody discovers a way to reveal the Matrix for what it is, in a manner which is repeatable and objective, at which point in time, science will change forever. If that event never happens, the question of "do we live inside a Matrix or not" is unanswerable, but not in conflict with science and reason. It has no effect at all on them.
Let me restate all of the above: the assumptions that science makes are that there is an objective reality and we can measure it. How that reality came into existence is currently beyond our capability to understand, and no matter what a person's belief about those "origins," there is no conflict whatsoever with science itself. Science says, "I can't answer that," period. It doesn't matter if God built the universe 14 billion years ago, or if we're in a Matrix, or if you're a Last-Thursdayist, if you accept the assumptions that science makes, then whatever science you do is still an examination of the objective reality which exists.
It only becomes a "conflict" when a person tries to bring their origin speculations under the umbrella of "objective reality" also, despite their (current) inability to support doing any such thing. Saying "I believe that God exists" is a far cry from saying "God exists and I can prove it to the world." This, of course, ties in with the debate (while I was gone) between H. and Matt, in that H. is approaching any "God exists" statement as being more like the latter than the former, and thus not giving any religionist the option of a subjective God goal.
After all, the liberal theist believes that he/she will only have "proof" of God's existence after death. It's not something which can be objectively tested, thus the necessity of faith. Personal, subjective faith.quote:
Sure, but I'm saying you need to pick a side. You can't flip-flop your assumptions between work and church as it suits you. It is not consistent to evaluate the claim of god's existence fundamentally differently than any other claim.
Okay, so how should we evaluate the Matrix claim?
The only tool which seems appropriate is Occam's Razor, but it isn't a determiner of truth or reason, but only a practical guide for where one should start looking. The Razor only suggests lines of investigation. It does not, and can not, absolutely separate what's true (or reasonable) from what's not.
Pragmatically, the Razor tells us to avoid starting our science with the assumption that the Matrix exists and we're all jacked into it. Regardless of the truth value of the Matrix (whether it exists or not doesn't matter), there's no reason to start with that assumption. More investigation might lead us to end with the conclusion that we're in a Matrix, but right now there are no observations which support such a hypothesis. (So we "reject" it only on pragmatic grounds, not scientific or logical grounds.)
But what if it's not a hypothesis? What if, instead, it's just a belief which allows some people to better cope with what life throws at them? (This, of course, works better with "God" than the "Matrix.") "God exists," after all, isn't even a hypothesis, much less the "claim about objective reality" you're making it out to be.
Hell, I don't "believe in" evolutionary theory any more than I "believe in" God. I don't have to take any part of objective reality on faith, so it's tremendously bizarre to me that someone (such as yourself) might demand that other people's expressions of subjective, untestable faith should play by any of the rules of objective reality.
Again, they only "conflict" when someone suggests to others that their belief is a part of objective reality, when it clearly is not (Dude's attempt at redefining "objective reality" to include completely subjective realities not withstanding, and I'm rather curious about Dry_vby's implied logical disproof of God).
And yes, I'm not only saying that it's normal for people to switch epistemologies at a moment's notice, but that it's necessary to be able to do so. Nobody assesses every thought they have using just one set of basic assumptions, as you admit regarding "subjective" statements. It's your attempt |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 02:34:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've been away on a business trip, so I apologize for the long delay in my reply.
Welcome back.
quote:
Then you've misunderstood me. The "Matrix theory" (especially) doesn't need to be rejected by anyone, since it doesn't conflict with science at all!
It conflicts with reason, which is the bedrock science is founded upon.
quote:
Let me restate all of the above: the assumptions that science makes are that there is an objective reality and we can measure it. How that reality came into existence is currently beyond our capability to understand, and no matter what a person's belief about those "origins," there is no conflict whatsoever with science itself. Science says, "I can't answer that," period. It doesn't matter if God built the universe 14 billion years ago, or if we're in a Matrix, or if you're a Last-Thursdayist, if you accept the assumptions that science makes, then whatever science you do is still an examination of the objective reality which exists.
I disagree. I think that by accepting the principles of science (and by that I mean logic, critical thinking, reason and rationality--all the things which are the opposite of faith), it becomes impossible to accept anything on faith without abdicating those principles. God, the matrix theory, last-thursdayism, all of them at the very least become speculations which men of reason cannot believe. You don't, as I've said, have to disbelieve in them, but it is not possible to reasonably believe them on no evidence.
quote:
The only tool which seems appropriate is Occam's Razor, but it isn't a determiner of truth or reason, but only a practical guide for where one should start looking. The Razor only suggests lines of investigation. It does not, and can not, absolutely separate what's true (or reasonable) from what's not.
Yes, Occam's Razor is the tool which allows us to reject the above speculations. You are correct in stating that it does not allow us to identify truth, but you are wrong in saying it does not allow us to identify the most reasonable claim. Our reason is only a guide to truth, not truth itself. It is possible that our reason may lead us to discard a true claim for which there is no evidence. Reason not only allows us to evaluate evidence, but also to evaluate different claims in the absence of any evidence. Sometimes various claims can be equally reasonable. Sometimes it is necessary to rule some out as possible beliefs, even if they may be (ultimately) true. So even if we were living in a matrix, it would be unreasonable to conclude so.
quote:
Pragmatically, the Razor tells us to avoid starting our science with the assumption that the Matrix exists and we're all jacked into it. Regardless of the truth value of the Matrix (whether it exists or not doesn't matter), there's no reason to start with that assumption. More investigation might lead us to end with the conclusion that we're in a Matrix, but right now there are no observations which support such a hypothesis. (So we "reject" it only on pragmatic grounds, not scientific or logical grounds.)
But Occam's razor is a tool of logic, so it is on logical grounds. It is logical to be pragmatic. How could it be otherwise?
quote:
And yes, I'm not only saying that it's normal for people to switch epistemologies at a moment's notice, but that it's necessary to be able to do so. Nobody assesses every thought they have using just one set of basic assumptions, as you admit regarding "subjective" statements. It's your attempt to reclassify someone's subjective belief as an objective claim which is the problem here.
All beliefs are claims. Perhaps claims to no one other than yourself, but they are claims. Some beliefs (claims) are about subjective matters, and some beliefs are about objective ones. One can hold unreasonable subjective beliefs about objective claims (the King of France belief), but one cannot do so without being illogical.
quote:
In another post, you wrote, H.:
quote:
How many men can you name who have a set in stone, cannot be reasoned with or talked out of belief about what caused the Big Bang that is not religious in nature?
Why limit this discussion to the extremists?
People are not comforted by phantoms. If they believe in god, they believe he is real, otherwise there would be no point to holding the belief at all. And, after all, that's whom we are talking about--theists. People who believe that god exists. Not in some imaginary way, but really and truly exists. Do you think that extreme? I do, but I suspect you think there is some other position. If there is, you'll need to let me know. I am not aware of anyone who merely believes in the possibility of a god classifying themselves as a theist.
quote:
It exists outside of the realm of science. Any guess is as good as any other. "I don't know" is simply more honest than "an invisible pink unicorn ate a bad chilidog and farted our universe into existence." But "I don't know" can only be assigned a truth value of "true" in the most academic of senses.
What's academic about it? "I don't know" is the only honest answer. The truth isn't knowable in this case.
quote:
Saying "I believe that God exists" is a far cry from saying "God exists and I can prove it to the world." This, of course, ties in with the debate (while I was gone) between H. and Matt, in that H. is approaching any "God exists" statement as being more like the latter than the former, and thus not giving any religionist the option of a subjective God goal.
You can have that goal, but you must suspend belief while pursuing it.
quote:
I don't have to take any part of objective reality on faith, so it's tremendously bizarre to me that s |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2005 02:47:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 10:05:57 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to think more about your latest post, H., but I was struck by one thing:quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, Occam's Razor is the tool which allows us to reject the above speculations. You are correct in stating that it does not allow us to identify truth, but you are wrong in saying it does not allow us to identify the most reasonable claim.
It seems that you're now saying that "reasonable" is now not a "binary" quality, but instead that some things can be more reasonable than others, without those others necessarily being unreasonable. Besides, that was my point: the Razor doesn't set a sharp dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable claims. Given two hypotheses which are known to be wrong, the Razor may still tell us that one is more reasonable than the other.
Oh, and as for people picking one set of rules and sticking with it (okay, I was struck by two things), I don't think it's possible. I don't evaluate my subjective tastes with a scientific methodology, and you've agreed it isn't necessary to do so. You are, at the very least, saying it's okay for people to switch between two sets of rules when then switch from "objective" to "subjective" claims, but that's not a "methodless application," is it?
So again, we get back to the question of whether or not "God exists" is a claim about objective reality. I submit that it cannot be, since there is no way to verify the existence of God. I don't want to get into a dictionary-definition dispute over the adjective "objective," but if we need to do so, then let's get it out of the way now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 11:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave, Humbert's posts-
RE Occums Razor, as a fan of scientific method over any form of metaphysical speculation any day of the week, I still have to ackowledge that this word "reasonable" really amounts to what we assess as having "the highest probability of being correct." There are instances where strange and complex mechanisms are in fact, correct- as opposed to simpler possibilities which might appear more straightforward- Occum's Razor isn't infallible, and the line-drawing part is subjective. But in general, I'll go with it. If based upon theism (or even fringe science) somene tells me the Sun will explode tomorrow- I'll grant that it's possible- but personally, I have no problem saying "Ain't gonna happen." I put the "God stuff" in the same category, but that's my subjectivity applied. Yours, Einstein's, Pat Robertson's (whoevers) might apply the Razor entirely differently. Occums Razor is a tool of logic, but it's inductive logic- not deductive. As for the stuff that "exists outside the realm of science" (the physical world, whatever) I'm clueless since fate (or God as a cruel joke, maybe) hasn't equipped me to sense or interact with it. If others have been so fortunately equipped, I commend them, and hope they understand and tolerate my inadequacies and consequent "closed mindedness" in these matters.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 11:39:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So again, we get back to the question of whether or not "God exists" is a claim about objective reality. I submit that it cannot be, since there is no way to verify the existence of God. I don't want to get into a dictionary-definition dispute over the adjective "objective," but if we need to do so, then let's get it out of the way now.
If it's a belief or claim about something that supposedly exists in reality, then it is an objective claim. Our knowledge of whether it is true or not doesn't change that.
For instance, say I claim that right now a diver in a pink wetsuit is swimming along the north shore of Lake Baikal. Is there? I have no idea. We can't verfify it since by the time we got there the person would be gone. But just because the claim is unknown and unverifiable it doesn't suddenly become a subjective claim.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2005 11:45:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 11:58:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If it's a claim about something that supposedly exists in reality, then it is an objective claim.
But then "strawberry is my favorite flavor" is an objective claim, and should also be treated as such. Giving it a pass as "subjective" implies that my preference doesn't "exist in reality," but that certainly isn't true.quote:
For instance, say I claim that right now a diver in a pink wetsuit is swimming along the north shore of Lake Baikal. Is there? I have no idea. We can't verfify it since by the time we got there the person would be gone. But just because the claim is unknown and unverifiable it doesn't suddenly become a subjective claim.
No, the claim is verifiable in principle (wouldn't you have been embarrassed had I a friend vacationing there coincidentally whom I could call via cellphone?), we have just missed the opportunity to test it. The basic God claim doesn't share this fundamental falsifiability. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 12:28:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But then "strawberry is my favorite flavor" is an objective claim, and should also be treated as such. Giving it a pass as "subjective" implies that my preference doesn't "exist in reality," but that certainly isn't true.
The preference exists in your mind only. It doesn't exist in external reality independant of you, which is how I've been determining objective and subjective.
In principle, would someone's real love of strawberry ice cream continue to exist after that person does not? No.
In principle, would a real god continue to exist after a theist does not? Yes.
Then these are clearly different types of beliefs at their most fundamental level.
quote:
No, the claim is verifiable in principle (wouldn't you have been embarrassed had I a friend vacationing there coincidentally whom I could call via cellphone?), we have just missed the opportunity to test it. The basic God claim doesn't share this fundamental falsifiability.
So the diver in a pink wetsuit belief would have been subjective only a few ceturies ago, but not since our communication technology improved?
For the sake of argument, let's say there is no way to remotely tell. As a thought experiment, we can pretend to zip there by magic and obeserve whether or not there is a diver. It is hypothetically verifiable if we only had the power to do so. Similarly, if god is a real entity, he should also be hypothetically verifiable if we only possessed the power to do so. If he is not even hypothetically verifiable, then god cannot be said to exist in any real sense of the word.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2005 12:55:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 13:48:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
In principle, would someone's real love of strawberry ice cream continue to exist after that person does not? No.
So if I burn a log, destroying the "logness" completely, then the log only existed in my mind? Yes, I know that's not what you're saying, but the fundamental difference you're trying to point out is, instead, about the temporal nature of existence, and not whether something exists at all.quote:
Then these are clearly different types of beliefs at their most fundamental level.
Indeed. And I'm saying that the existence or non-existence of something which we can't objectively measured is another fundamental difference. You're absolutely correct that if something can't be detected, then it makes no practical sense to act as if it exists ("god cannot be said to exist in any real sense of the word"), but nobody I'm aware of claims to believe in God for practical reasons (other than the poor Pascal's Wager).
Don't forget, the truth value of "God exists" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the belief that God exists fundamentally conflicts with reason.quote:
So the diver in a pink wetsuit belief would have been subjective only a few ceturies ago, but not since our communication technology improved?
No. Detection in principle was still available, were we to travel there and ask potential witnesses about the time-frame in question. One imagines that several centuries ago, a person in a pink wetsuit would be remembered by anyone who happened to be nearby.quote:
For the sake of argument, let's say there is no way to remotely tell. As a thought experiment, we can pretend to zip there by magic and obeserve whether or not there is a diver. It is hypothetically verifiable if we only had the power to do so. Similarly, if god is a real entity, he should also be hypothetically verifiable if we only possessed the power to do so.
And what power would that be?
We don't need to resort to magic for the pink wetsuit experiment. We can imagine devices which are - in principle - capable of light-speed teleportation, even if there's no practical way to build such things (50-km wide lenses, etc.). But with a god, or the Matrix, or whatever, can you conceive of any way to detect it, other than some magic which lacks even hypothetical validity? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 14:14:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
In principle, would someone's real love of strawberry ice cream continue to exist after that person does not? No.
So if I burn a log, destroying the "logness" completely, then the log only existed in my mind? Yes, I know that's not what you're saying, but the fundamental difference you're trying to point out is, instead, about the temporal nature of existence, and not whether something exists at all.
Don't you think this goes back to first principles? I believe that there is such a thing as reality that exists independent of myself. It is necessary to accept this first principle in order to do science. My point wasn't about temporalness, but the ability to separate the believer from the thing believed in, the perceiver from what he perceives. The log exists whether you do or not (at that moment in time). Can the same be said of god? Is god like a log, a separate thing with its own existence, or is his existence dependant upon a theist's belief in him?
quote:
And I'm saying that the existence or non-existence of something which we can't objectively measured is another fundamental difference. You're absolutely correct that if something can't be detected, then it makes no practical sense to act as if it exists ("god cannot be said to exist in any real sense of the word"), but nobody I'm aware of claims to believe in God for practical reasons (other than the poor Pascal's Wager).
Well, I think we've gone about as far on this point as we can. I think we can agree that practicality is an important component to reason when evaluating beliefs about external reality. Our disagreement hinges upon the fact that you consider god's reality to be somehow subjective, and thus not subject to reason.
quote:
quote:
For the sake of argument, let's say there is no way to remotely tell. As a thought experiment, we can pretend to zip there by magic and obeserve whether or not there is a diver. It is hypothetically verifiable if we only had the power to do so. Similarly, if god is a real entity, he should also be hypothetically verifiable if we only possessed the power to do so.
And what power would that be?
We don't need to resort to magic for the pink wetsuit experiment. We can imagine devices which are - in principle - capable of light-speed teleportation, even if there's no practical way to build such things (50-km wide lenses, etc.). But with a god, or the Matrix, or whatever, can you conceive of any way to detect it, other than some magic which lacks even hypothetical validity?
How should I know? If the matrix were real, one could in principle go there. If god were real, one could in principle meet him. If something exists, it must exist somewhere. There has to be some other thing, some molecule even, with which it interacts in the real world even if independant of any observer. That is how I'm defining real. Real like a log is real. It exists.
You seem to be claiming that things can exist which exhibit none of the properties of existence.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2005 14:24:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
