Philosophy is the love of man's wisdom. As such more often than not it's total garbage. Man's logic is
flawed and incomplete. So in some sense I can agree with McDanger it is not profitable to try to answer unanswerable questions. The question really is what is the standard of proof you aspire to. What constitutes an answer? I believe that the existence of God is not an unreasonable proposition, indeed I see how it answers many questions and brings consistency to my overall picture of the world. Can I "prove" He exists? Probably not to you, but to someone else perhaps. "Proof" is subjective, even in math.

Anyway, I find the following thought proufoundly ignorant

Quote :

" As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where the absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended."

Yes, after we assumed that electromagnetism was true then there was nothing left to think about. No inventions or applications or even things to ponder about why electromagnetism works as it does. Just like when Christians accept that there is a God and that the Bible is His inspired Word then there are no questions left, no theology to ponder, no questions in life that are grey,... No, Christians are just simpletons, incapable of the profundities that only the enlightened atheist or agnostic can partake. Sarcasm aside, Blind-faith is really a misnomer. Faith is not the end of rational thinking, rather the beginning.

I'm not trying to say all atheists/agnostics are stupid. I'd say all the various camps (theist, atheist,other) are equally stupid at times. In each, you can find discourse of varying sophistication. The question is not really which has the correct proof, the question is what does each camp take as basic. Each proceeds more or less from some set of fundamental assumptions. When these assumptions contradict each other then one camp finds the other to be unintelligent. But, all they really did was to discover the fact that unless you start from the same premise logic alone will not guide you to the same conclusions.

One can be logical, without being correct. Conversely, one can be correct without being logical
( I see this on tests alot ). The real trouble in the search for truth is knowing what fundamental premises are the correct ones. Logic alone cannot reveal the answer to that. Well, at least that's how I see it.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 9:21 PM. Reason : /]

4/2/2006 9:21:14 PM

Quote :

"Philosophy is the love of man's wisdom."

It is also investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Quote :

"As such more often than not it's total garbage."

You don't read much philosophy. This opinion you have is one most people who know nothing about philosophy take up.

Quote :

"Man's logic is flawed and incomplete."

It is an incomplete way of viewing the world, but it isn't somehow flawed and incomplete in terms of itself.

Quote :

"The question really is what is the standard of proof you aspire to."

Falsifiability. Any way that you can ever know, in a demonstrable way.

Quote :

"I believe that the existence of God is not an unreasonable proposition, indeed I see how it answers many questions and brings consistency to my overall picture of the world. Can I "prove" He exists? Probably not to you, but to someone else perhaps. "Proof" is subjective, even in math."

I don't even know how to begin with this. I'll just leave it at saying: things cannot be falsifiable to one person, but not to another. Falsifiability is not some sliding scale -- it's not a subjective test things are run through. It is absolute. Either you can possibly dream up a test that can verify a hypothesis or not. If you cannot, it is meaningless.

Quote :

"Faith is not the end of rational thinking, rather the beginning."

It is the beginning of some basic, common-sensical judgements like "the world around me is real". However, when leaping past that to build huge structures on assumptions which cannot be verified -- that is not the beginning of rational thinking. It is the epitome of futile thought.

Quote :

"I'm not trying to say all atheists/agnostics are stupid."

That's good because you'd be very wrong.

Quote :

"The question is not really which has the correct proof, the question is what does each camp take as basic. Each proceeds more or less from some set of fundamental assumptions. When these assumptions contradict each other then one camp finds the other to be unintelligent. But, all they really did was to discover the fact that unless you start from the same premise logic alone will not guide you to the same conclusions."

Well you're right. But why do you think an arbitrary, assumed solution to an unanswerable question as complex as the existence of God is a good starting point for any belief-system or frame of logic?

Quote :

"The real trouble in the search for truth is knowing what fundamental premises are the correct ones. Logic alone cannot reveal the answer to that."

Very true, but we need SOME sort of compass. That which is not falsifiable has no relevance to our lives. Why even deal in it?

4/2/2006 9:38:57 PM

"It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge, whereas faith is of the unseen, as is clear from the Apostle (Heb. xi I). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists."
-- St Thomas of Aquinas
Summa Theologica Question 2, Article 2 Objection 1

Reply to Objection 1:
"The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature and perfection the perfectible. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, from accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated."

4/2/2006 9:40:04 PM

Quote :

"It is the beginning of some basic, common-sensical judgements like "the world around me is real". However, when leaping past that to build huge structures on assumptions which cannot be verified -- that is not the beginning of rational thinking. It is the epitome of futile thought."

Euclidean geometry, the basis of almost all western math for at least 2000 years was founded upon the following:
"a point is that which has no part."
"a line is a breadthless length."
(and other definitions)
along with the postulates that one is able to draw a straight line from any point to any point, and that one is able "to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line."

go ahead and prove those. i think you will find that there is a reason they are treated as givens.
NOW, was 2000 years of math useless?

4/2/2006 9:44:17 PM

Quote :

"NOW, was 2000 years of math useless?"

This is an excellent attempt at a strawman.

You can demonstrate those properties are true indirectly. They have obvious explanatory power, as do their extensions. So long as the reality you're describing is as mundane as the reality Euclid lived in, Euclidean geometry is going to describe it quite nicely.

The moment Euclidean geometry begins to lose its explanatory power, then those basic assumptions have been falsified.

Even if something is not testable directly, it can still be falsifiable. Natural laws are either corroborated or cast down by the evidence. This is the means by which a law is falsifiable or not.

The scope in which some of these scientists and thinkers existed made their theories falsifiable, because it conformed to their limited experience. Newtonian mechanics is, funny enough, pseudo-scientific because there is no such thing as an inertial body. However, from Newton's standpoint, it was descriptive of his world. Of course, Newtonian Mechanics were extremely important and a stepping stone in the history of science.

This does not somehow suggest that all non falsifiable things come to such great conclusions. Newton came to the conclusion that inertial bodies existed because it fit the data. The same goes for Euclid's postulates.

Even though Newton's "inertial body" is as elusive and non falsifiable as the existence of a unicorn, or God, or Allah, or a point, or a line, he came to his conclusion in a reasonable manner. His belief in inertial bodies allowed him to construct a system with which was attributed great explanatory power. Even knowing he was wrong, this system still works within a certain margin of error.

Now, compare such a case to the religious thinker (or atheist thinker). Can you dream up a circumstance in which you could test for the existence of an undetectable, non-physical object? Can you imagine the case in which mankind (or any other species) could test for the existence of such a thing, regardless of current technological boundaries?

If Newton were dreaming up an inertial body just for the hell of it, then it wouldn't have had a lot of power or meaning. The realm of non falsifiable questions and hypotheses is boundless. To pluck one from infinity and attempt to build a system on top of it is counter-intuitive. Rather, coming to the conclusion that one might exist due to a greater body of data is an educated guess. In hind-sight, if the assumption proved faulty or we know that it is not demonstrable, then the system derived therefrom is incorrect and is treated as such.

A question I pose to you is -- what sort of explanatory power does belief or disbelief in god provide anybody?

4/2/2006 10:09:06 PM

The course of debate having swung away from any area of my particular interest, and McDanger and I having mutually low opinions of the other's points, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread.

Enjoy.

4/2/2006 10:19:44 PM

When I saw your name on the "most recently replied" spot, I was hoping for a well-thought out response, not a retreat.

Come on man, Christ didn't bow out of arguments, did he?

Quote :

"any area of my particular interest"

This must mean "confirmation that I'm right"

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 10:22:33 PM

"what sort of explanatory power does belief or disbelief in god provide anybody?"

for me the mathematical explanations of physical phenomena has always been compelling. and i dont mean newton, i mean things like fractals. the fact that certain patterns exist throughout the world is an interesting line of investigation. if there is a god then the math makes perfect sense(kepler and aristotle offer some good passages here(although some of kepler's examples have since been questioned, especially his actual measurements about planetary orbits)). if there is not a god then there must be another explanation for patterns within "chaos".

as for the question of "can you dream up a circumstance in which you could test for the existence of an undetectable, non-physical object?"
the answer to this would seem to be the realm of philosophy. although i have a lot of problems with the writings of descartes that i have been exposed to, he seemed to offer an answer to the question of "how do we test for our own existence".
but i do agree with him that our own existence is a circumstance where something that is non physical must be tested for (i dont mean our physical bodies i mean our mind and souls). what this test would be i do not know.

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 10:33 PM. Reason : grammar blows]

4/2/2006 10:32:38 PM

Math is just an expression of our environment. The fact that it works out many times is interesting, and it's why we develop it as a field of interest. The universe does not contain "math". It contains natural law which guides the processes, sure -- but math is simply a finite human's expression.

Quote :

"but i do agree with him that our own existence is a circumstance where something that is non physical must be tested for (i dont mean our physical bodies i mean our mind and souls)."

What about the mind suggests that it's not created completely by physical interactions in the brain? I can think of plenty of things that suggests it does.

Quote :

"what this test would be i do not know."

It's important you admitted this. If you cannot think up a test, it means what you're thinking about is not falsifiable. It's awesome that we've come across a point where I can demonstrate this concept to you viscerally.

4/2/2006 10:37:53 PM

Quote :

"This must mean "confirmation that I'm right""

Yes, that's the only thing it could mean.

The last response you offered was short and largely evasive. "I don't claim to speak for..." Give me a break. Or better, give me example of which kinds of philosophy are OK and which kinds are lame and pointless, so that I can see where this line you've drawn is.

You've thrown around "falsifiable" quite a bit without saying much as to how a religion is or is not falsifiable. It's yet another thing that you take as an article of faith, as it were. In one of the other threads you've yet to respond (that I've noticed) to the proposition that a great many people do believe that they have spoken to or seen clear manifestations of the Almighty.

Just from a quick glance, you also admit that nonfalsifiable ideas can be enormously important to the benefit of humanity -- but of course, only certain, apparently arbitrary ones meet that.

Quote :

"A question I pose to you is -- what sort of explanatory power does belief or disbelief in god provide anybody?"

A vast and essentially all-encompassing one. The explanations offered are not always specific or of practical use, but then, I suspect with a little thinking we could come up with some or another scientific revelation that isn't exactly doing much for us at the moment.

Just from a quick glance, you later admit that nonfalsifiable ideas can be enormously important to the benefit of humanity.

Quote :

"I was hoping for a well-thought out response"

Bullshit. You've made your opinion of the ability of my colleagues and myself to make well-thought out arguments clear on many occasions.

4/2/2006 10:42:31 PM

Quote :

"The last response you offered was short and largely evasive. "I don't claim to speak for..." Give me a break. Or better, give me example of which kinds of philosophy are OK and which kinds are lame and pointless, so that I can see where this line you've drawn is."

How many times do I have to utter the term "falsifiable" before it sinks in? I'm getting tired of typing it.

Quote :

"You've thrown around "falsifiable" quite a bit without saying much as to how a religion is or is not falsifiable."

"Does God exist?" is THE textbook non falsifiable question.

Quote :

"In one of the other threads you've yet to respond (that I've noticed) to the proposition that a great many people do believe that they have spoken to or seen clear manifestations of the Almighty."

Apply Occam's Razor and what we know about brain chemistry and human psychology.

Quote :

"Just from a quick glance, you also admit that nonfalsifiable ideas can be enormously important to the benefit of humanity -- but of course, only certain, apparently arbitrary ones meet that."

Incorrect. Read my post again. This time give it more than a quick glance. You just might learn something.

I explained quite well why those cases were legitimate. They were a product of working backwards, and doing so with full intellectual honesty. They were a product of scientific development within a specific scope -- the scope of the times.

Quote :

"Bullshit. You've made your opinion of the ability of my colleagues and myself to make well-thought out arguments clear on many occasions."

I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong.

4/2/2006 10:47:22 PM

you think you're so smart, McDanger, don't you?

[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2006 10:53:15 PM

4/2/2006 10:54:39 PM

I knew it!

4/2/2006 10:55:10 PM

4/2/2006 10:55:34 PM

Quote :

"for me the mathematical explanations of physical phenomena has always been compelling. and i dont mean newton, i mean things like fractals. the fact that certain patterns exist throughout the world is an interesting line of investigation."

As mathematical equations go, fractals are not any more complicated than polynomials. Sure, an image of the Mandelbrot set looks a lot more interesting than a quadratic describing how an object falls to Earth, but the pattern itself is very very simple:

Z = Z^2 + C,

where Z and C are complex numbers, just happens to look really cool when you graph iterations in the complex plane.

So it is reasonable to expect that a very simple formula can express a lot. When you look at a fractal image, however, you should not be fooled into thinking that reality is ever that repetitive. A pattern is an invention of your mind that expresses reality with less data -- much like a .jpg image or a .mp3 sound, you lose data and so you lose fidelity. Your ideas are never an exact representation of what they are supposed to represent. A fractal is an idea, much like a Euclidean perfect circle. It does not really describe reality and its predictive power is limited.

Quote :

"if there is a god then the math makes perfect sense(kepler and aristotle offer some good passages here(although some of kepler's examples have since been questioned, especially his actual measurements about planetary orbits)). if there is not a god then there must be another explanation for patterns within "chaos"."

Math makes perfect sense because that's what an idea is, something that fits with other ideas. Ideas are perfect. Reality is not. When Benoit Mandelbrot first plotted the formula above, he called it beautiful because he had never seen anything like it. Fractals were stumbled upon mathematically, not derived from personal experience. We can't use math to determine what is real. We also can't use math to rationalize whether or not there is a god, because math is a human invention.


[Edited on April 2, 2006 at 11:04 PM. Reason : more to say]

4/2/2006 10:56:51 PM

Quote :

"Yes, after we assumed that electromagnetism was true then there was nothing left to think about."

What the hell do you mean "assumed that electromagnetism was true?"

4/2/2006 11:57:35 PM

my point in bringing in kepler was the interesting things he had to say about the ratios that he saw within the orbits of the planets, and those same ratios sounding beautiful to us.
that is to say that a great number of things within our universe have attributes which we would express as being perfect if we described them through math. but those relationships are something we are describing. in the case of music i think that reality is perfect.

4/3/2006 1:35:23 AM

Rethinking the falsifiable question line of thought, it seems as though anything that is falsifable is something that admits of degrees. What I mean is that if you are able to prove it wrong then there is a lack of certainty as to its validity. Therefore it is not 100% true.

From this line of thinking anything that is not falsifiable is either true or it is not. any evidence as to one side or the other would fully prove it. One of the definitions/explinations i saw used an example of saying "all crows are black", with it being falsifiable because you could say "all i have to do is find one white crow to prove it wrong". Therefore anything that is not falsifiable either does not admit of proof, or any proof would be the only proof needed. (this is probably a little fuzzy but its 2 am and im on sinus meds).

anyway...
Just because I can not think of a way to prove god exists does not mean that the question itself is invalid. First, why does a question have to be falsifiable to be a valid question? Second, my ability to think of what would prove the proposition that god exists true or false reveals two things. It reveals my own inadequacies (i cant think of a way to prove quantam mechanics true or false either), and it makes me wonder whether we are asking the right question or not. if your view about the need to make a question falsifiable is justified then all we have to do is rewrite the question.

4/3/2006 2:00:59 AM

Quote :

"What I mean is that if you are able to prove it wrong then there is a lack of certainty as to its validity. Therefore it is not 100% true."

I have no idea what you mean. Just because you can think up a test in which something might be proven wrong doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong or not "100% true". If it is shown to be wrong, then it needs to be reworked. This is science. This is what human existence is like.

Quote :

"From this line of thinking anything that is not falsifiable is either true or it is not."

Perhaps so, but we cannot know the answer. That's the definition.

Quote :

"any evidence as to one side or the other would fully prove it."

You cannot accumulate evidence. It goes against the definition.

Quote :

"One of the definitions/explinations i saw used an example of saying "all crows are black", with it being falsifiable because you could say "all i have to do is find one white crow to prove it wrong"."

This is a problem with induction, not with falsifiability. Yes, the hypothesis that "all crows are black" is falsifiable. We know of a method by which to test this, namely going out and looking at crows.

Quote :

"(this is probably a little fuzzy but its 2 am and im on sinus meds)."

Get some sleep and sober up.

Quote :

"Just because I can not think of a way to prove god exists does not mean that the question itself is invalid."

Perhaps not, but the fact that nobody can does.

Quote :

"First, why does a question have to be falsifiable to be a valid question?"

A question must be falsifiable in order to know the answer.

Quote :

"if your view about the need to make a question falsifiable is justified then all we have to do is rewrite the question."

Get back to me when you redefine God, then.

[Edited on April 3, 2006 at 2:13 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2006 2:10:43 AM

Quote :

"that is to say that a great number of things within our universe have attributes which we would express as being perfect if we described them through math. but those relationships are something we are describing. in the case of music i think that reality is perfect."

Music, however, is not reality. Music is something that we invent based on our perception of vibrations. The vibrations themselves are not perfect, but when your instruments are in tune and you create certain ratios, it sounds perfect because it your idea of the vibrations is perfect and harmonious and nice. TV static or traffic noises do not sound as nice because you cannot easily fit them into a pattern -- beauty is, in some sense, a measure of conformance to ideal patterns.

You say, "those relationships are something we are describing." It's true, it isn't the raw vibration of matter that interests us, but the relationships between them. So, a relationship is also an idea. Like math, it is perfect -- two things are related or they are not. These numbers add up or they do not.

But there is no such thing as fatherhood. There is no such thing as five. You cannot point to fatherhood, or the amount "five," though your mind can indicate it. These black pixels are not actually words, they are just a different amount of light on your screen than elsewhere. The words exist in your mind only. Because we have agreed upon English and the Latin alphabet, I can communicate my ideas to you. That, language, is a human invention. Five is a human invention. The idea of fatherhood is a human invention.

The conchshell is very pretty. It has a lovely pattern. The repeating form of the shell just tickles me pink. But you know what? The pattern doesn't continue forever if you zoom in on the center. It also doesn't continue if you zoom out and look at the beach. The shell also isn't as smooth as you think if you put a microscope on it. Sometimes an ass has zits on it. The pattern, my idea, is as inaccurate as the idea of a perfect circle.

Mathematics, a perfect idea, does not describe reality perfectly. Nothing can. This is because reality is imperfect; it is not ideal; it cannot be accurately represented by an idea. Reality represents itself and that's the best you can do.

If you want to explore fractals and patterns and perfect worlds, I suggest you try shrooms.

[Edited on April 3, 2006 at 2:19 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2006 2:16:28 AM

Quote :

"You cannot accumulate evidence. It goes against the definition."

?

Quote :

"A question must be falsifiable in order to know the answer."

what is the justification for this? (you have used the word so much im assuming you have read a fair amount of the subject)

Quote :

"Get back to me when you redefine God, then."

why is our definition of god the problem here? in my opinion, the definition of god is rather unimportant, in that the question of "what is the nature of god" is much more important (the difference being much like with the line example. saying what a line is is only a starting point and says very little about the line)

4/3/2006 2:21:53 AM

Quote :

"what is the justification for this? (you have used the word so much im assuming you have read a fair amount of the subject)"

If you cannot demonstrate an answer, how does one exist? I could ask you if green, effectless, undetectable dragons existed. The question is, however, meaningless because we cannot test whether they exist or not. There is no feasible way to ever see if they exist, therefore the question is meaningless. Our existence isn't changed whether they exist or not.

The reason why you cannot accumulate evidence to "answer" a non falsifiable question is because there is no answer with which to stack evidence towards.

4/3/2006 2:25:14 AM

Quote :

"The conchshell is very pretty. It has a lovely pattern. The repeating form of the shell just tickles me pink. But you know what? The pattern doesn't continue forever if you zoom in on the center. It also doesn't continue if you zoom out and look at the beach. The shell also isn't as smooth as you think if you put a microscope on it. Sometimes an ass has zits on it. The pattern, my idea, is as inaccurate as the idea of a perfect circle."

does this mean that reality is not perfect or does it mean that our understanding of what perfection would be is wrong?
i would like to note that all my explorations of this topic has been done while sober.

Quote :

"If you cannot demonstrate an answer, how does one exist? I could ask you if green, effectless, undetectable dragons existed. The question is, however, meaningless because we cannot test whether they exist or not. There is no feasible way to ever see if they exist, therefore the question is meaningless. Our existence isn't changed whether they exist or not."

but if god exists then he is not an effectless, undetectable dragon. your knowledge of his existence may not change anything other than your outlook on the world, but if he exists then he has done something.

4/3/2006 2:40:50 AM

That's not necessarily true.

God as an undetectable, supernatural force is not very different than the dragon. The dragon is equally likely to exist as god -- but even that statement is damn near gibberish. How do you talk about the probability of something existing if you cannot verify its existence?

4/3/2006 2:42:54 AM

god as an undectable, supernatural force is something argued only by atheists in my opinion. belief in god presupposes that he has done something.

therefore, if we wanted to prove god's existence we must define him as something that has the ability to affect reality.

4/3/2006 2:48:15 AM

Quote :

"god as an undectable, supernatural force is something argued only by atheists in my opinion."

This is not something argued by atheists at all -- they deny this.

If you believe god is detectable, then give me a method by which to demonstrate his detectable presence.

4/3/2006 2:50:06 AM

Quote :

"god as an undectable, supernatural force is something argued only by atheists in my opinion."

You seem to be wholly unfamiliar with the definition of the term "atheist".

4/3/2006 2:53:02 AM

i wasnt saying that atheists believe of god as that. i meant that atheists use that definition and argue against it.

4/3/2006 3:01:09 AM

Nobody has come up with a scientific method to detect God's presence, or lack thereof.

We're not talking about using current technologies, we're talking about using whatever fantasy technology you want as long as it obeys our current understanding of nature and physics.

Thus, it is not falsifiable under our current understanding. If you somehow crack this problem, you should get a paper published.

4/3/2006 3:08:41 AM

well i did bring up the math stuff, but contrast raised some very valid arguments against "my" test.

4/3/2006 3:12:04 AM

Quote :

"It is also investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

ok, but I think my definition sums it up. Then again we could debate it, but that would be semantics, or would it be philosophy... And by the way, isn't thinking itself an experiment? How is that not an "empirical" method?

Quote :

"You don't read much philosophy. This opinion you have is one most people who know nothing about philosophy take up."

Or maybe, I have just yet to hear anything remotely constructive escape the mouth of a philosopher. Granted, I should be careful with such statements as the definition of philosophy is so vague it may well contain other productive lines of reasoning. Like mathematics for instance. It would seem to me that mathematics has offered more actual results then philosophy when push comes to shove. The death of logical positivism or the birth of non-Euclidean geometry are good examples of this. Philosophers can sit around and BS about this and that, but in the end it takes a mathematician to give reliable conclusions. (I'm not that guy don't get me wrong here )

Now, it is certainly the case that all the issues dealt with by philosophy are not likely to be resolved by mathematics. But, why in the world should I take stock in a field of study which has proven itself to be vastly lacking in as much as it can be falsified against empirics. So, in short, philosophy for philosophy's sake is vane. Otherwise, the Greeks would have gotten further in their understanding of the natural world.

Quote :

"It is an incomplete way of viewing the world, but it isn't somehow flawed and incomplete in terms of itself."

this is your axiom. I tend to think that logic is incomplete, and that emotion clouds the pure rational thinking you posit to exist. I don't believe that anyone can really attack the issue of the existance/nonexistance of God without trying to bend the facts to fit their own preconcieved notions. Anyone who says they can approach that issue from a purely logical perspective is in denial.

Quote :

"Falsifiability. Any way that you can ever know, in a demonstrable way."

But, how can you ever be 100% certain. What if something slipped your mind. Or what if the question you are studying does not yield itself to falsification? As others have touched on there are certainly questions which
are not falsifiable and yet are important. For example, if God exists and you refuse to believe in Him simply because you cannot touch and feel or perhaps more aptly fit Him inside your head then it could have eternal consequences for you if I am right and He does exist.

Quote :

"I don't even know how to begin with this. I'll just leave it at saying: things cannot be falsifiable to one person, but not to another. Falsifiability is not some sliding scale -- it's not a subjective test things are run through. It is absolute. Either you can possibly dream up a test that can verify a hypothesis or not. If you cannot, it is meaningless."

again you assume that humans are at there base rational logical beings. I think this is why we differ, I don't suppose this. I think that humans can attempt to be rational, but it is far to easy to deceive one's self to ever possess the certitude that you posit exists. Again, preconceived notions and emotion cloud pure logic.

Quote :

"Well you're right. But why do you think an arbitrary, assumed solution to an unanswerable question as complex as the existence of God is a good starting point for any belief-system or frame of logic?"

On the otherhand, why do you think that man's logic is sufficient. Surely TWW if nothing else must shake your faith in man's wisdom alone.

My God is not an arbitrary one invented by human logic, He is real and has left plenty of evidence of His existence. Moreover, it is entirely logical to suppose that the creator of universe had a role in the creation of logic as well. From my perspective, the only logic that can truly be pure is God's. Everything else is quesitonable. Indeed that is part of why theology is not the death of rational thought, there are still lots of open questions to ponder. The difference is really just in the parameters of the discussion.

Quote :

"Very true, but we need SOME sort of compass. That which is not falsifiable has no relevance to our lives. Why even deal in it?"

See again you insist on deciding by pure reason alone what is and is not important or relevant to your life. In effect you demand that you are in charge, that you are God.

Here's my perspective,

God came to earth in human form as Jesus 2000 years ago, left thousand of witnesses, thousands of written accounts that survive to this day, fufilled prophecy, left archeological evidence of his visit, changed the course of human history, gave an explaination for most of the why's of what He did and yet the world still acts likes, God, who is that? I mean what does it take, sometimes I think if it was somehow found that subatomic matter bears the inscription "property of Jesus of Nazareth" you'd ignore that.

4/3/2006 3:24:53 AM

Quote :

"sometimes I think if it was somehow found that subatomic matter bears the inscription "property of Jesus of Nazareth" you'd ignore that."

im not a christian, but that made me laugh.

4/3/2006 3:29:27 AM

Quote :

"ok, but I think my definition sums it up."

Well it doesn't.

Quote :

"And by the way, isn't thinking itself an experiment? How is that not an "empirical" method?"

empirical -- based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Quote :

"Or maybe, I have just yet to hear anything remotely constructive escape the mouth of a philosopher."

Read more. Take a class from Professor Austin or Professor Carroll. Stop talking out of your ass. Statements like this make you look painfully ignorant, probably because you are. Don't make judgements on fields you don't know. Pick up a book. I can even suggest a few titles if you'd like to learn something.

Quote :

"It would seem to me that mathematics has offered more actual results then philosophy when push comes to shove. The death of logical positivism or the birth of non-Euclidean geometry are good examples of this. Philosophers can sit around and BS about this and that, but in the end it takes a mathematician to give reliable conclusions."

Stop making yourself look so stupid, it's embarassing for both of us. Please go pick up a few books and read them.

Quote :

"(I'm not that guy don't get me wrong here )"

No, you really ARE "that guy". You will stop being that guy when you educate yourself before you attempt to form a cogent argument.

Quote :

"Now, it is certainly the case that all the issues dealt with by philosophy are not likely to be resolved by mathematics. But, why in the world should I take stock in a field of study which has proven itself to be vastly lacking in as much as it can be falsified against empirics."

Seeing as how philosophy doesn't search with empirical methods, but rather logic, I'm not sure what your point is. Plenty of things in philosophy are falsified through empirical findings.

Quote :

"So, in short, philosophy for philosophy's sake is vane. Otherwise, the Greeks would have gotten further in their understanding of the natural world."

How can you be "math"man and be so logically deficient? Do I really need to go into this quote to display the errors? They leap off the screen at me, and hopefully upon a second examination they will for you as well.

Quote :

"Or what if the question you are studying does not yield itself to falsification?"

You mean what if the question is not falsifiable? I have answered this way too many times.

Quote :

"For example, if God exists and you refuse to believe in Him simply because you cannot touch and feel or perhaps more aptly fit Him inside your head then it could have eternal consequences for you if I am right and He does exist."

Pascal's Wager. So, which God should I believe in, out of the infinite variations of god one could think up? I have no better reason to believe in one god over another, seeing as how we cannot verify the existence of any god.

Quote :

"again you assume that humans are at there base rational logical beings. I think this is why we differ, I don't suppose this. I think that humans can attempt to be rational, but it is far to easy to deceive one's self to ever possess the certitude that you posit exists. Again, preconceived notions and emotion cloud pure logic."

What is rationality except a survival mechanism -- to associate a cause with an effect? Outside of the human brain, logic and reason have no meaning. They do not exist. They are human constructions to express the outside world.

Quote :

"On the otherhand, why do you think that man's logic is sufficient."

It isn't. But alas, we're limited in our understanding to our brains and sensory organs. What cannot be expressed in brain matter cannot be grasped by a human being.

Quote :

"Surely TWW if nothing else must shake your faith in man's wisdom alone. "

Examples of the lowest rungs of human intelligence should not dampen your expectations for man's full potential. This is religious thinking at its best.

Quote :

"My God is not an arbitrary one invented by human logic, He is real and has left plenty of evidence of His existence."

orly? Care to show me?

Quote :

"Moreover, it is entirely logical to suppose that the creator of universe had a role in the creation of logic as well. From my perspective, the only logic that can truly be pure is God's. Everything else is quesitonable. Indeed that is part of why theology is not the death of rational thought, there are still lots of open questions to ponder. The difference is really just in the parameters of the discussion."

You cannot even give me a method by which I could demonstrate God's existence or nonexistence. How can you begin to make claims about his cognitive functions?

Quote :

"See again you insist on deciding by pure reason alone what is and is not important or relevant to your life."

Give me a better barometer available to us, and I'll consider using it.

Quote :

"In effect you demand that you are in charge, that you are God."

Don't presume to know what I demand. I'm in charge of my own thoughts, assuming I'm fully alert and sober. I make no claims about being God. My only claim is that we cannot know about the existence of a god. Didn't you even attempt to read my arguments before responding? You can do better than this.

Quote :

"God came to earth in human form as Jesus 2000 years ago, left thousand of witnesses, thousands of written accounts that survive to this day, fufilled prophecy, left archeological evidence of his visit, changed the course of human history, gave an explaination for most of the why's of what He did and yet the world still acts likes, God, who is that?"

So what you're saying is, there's a story that's been passed down through dubious, heavily biased sources for the last two MILLENIA. In this story, this god of yours fulfills prophecies written in another equally dubious, heavily biased source passed down through presumably even more millenia. Then, you claim there's archeological evidence (where?) that corroborates these stories -- the only catch is that no reputable scientists buy it.

You then ask ME to buy this. The course of human history was changed however, but not by Jesus -- by your cult that follows his memory. There is no rational reason for me to believe that your holy book is true, even if it was the only book of its nature. What makes it superior to the Koran, or to Jewish teachings without the Christian part? What makes it different than the teachings of Hinduism? "Just because" is not good enough. You cannot prove or verify anything written in the Bible except perhaps commonly agreed-on historical events (which have already been proven and verified through archeological evidence).

So yes, God. Who is that? You still haven't given me a good answer (helpful hint: there isn't one).

Quote :

"I mean what does it take, sometimes I think if it was somehow found that subatomic matter bears the inscription "property of Jesus of Nazareth" you'd ignore that."

It'll take more than lots of hoping and wishing. Do you think I get my jollies by not believing in an almighty creator who will love me no matter WHAT and cherish me in ETERNAL heaven? If I found subatomic matter with Jesus' traces on it, it would corroborate what we all know: Jesus existed. He was a man. Until you can prove otherwise, it's only reasonable to believe the obvious.

4/3/2006 4:08:44 AM

Quote :

"McDanger: You cannot even give me a method by which I could demonstrate God's existence or nonexistence."

Kant claims to have one. It took him an incomprehensible book to explain it, though. I'm still trying to translate his 500-word sentences on the matter.



If you can figure out the basis, or even get to the part where he goes into it while remaining conscious, let me know.

---

Quote :

"mathman: Indeed that is part of why theology is not the death of rational thought, there are still lots of open questions to ponder."

First of all, the quote you're referring to said belief, not theology is the death of intelligence, not rational thought. Neither pair are the same, but both are revealing of your true qualms with the statement. You're falling into the exact type of fallacious understanding that the quote was talking about: namely that a lack of blind faith in X presupposes a blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.

Within theology there are numerous questions being pondered about numerous gods, many opinions and hypotheses, very few firm beliefs; rarely one laced with anything approaching certitude.

Also...

Quote :

"Gamecat: What the hell do you mean "assumed that electromagnetism was true?""

---

Quote :

"McDanger: Don't presume to know what I demand. I'm in charge of my own thoughts, assuming I'm fully alert and sober. I make no claims about being God. My only claim is that we cannot know about the existence of a god. Didn't you even attempt to read my arguments before responding? You can do better than this."

Charges of solipism are exactly the reason I rarely dip into theological debates anymore. *sigh*

Good luck, with mathman, McDanger. You appear to be up against ontology.

Now then, I have to take issue with one thing you said here.

To what extent are you in charge of your own thoughts? Also, to what extent are you willing to extend validity to individual experience on the matter of "know[ing] about the existence of a god?"

Clearly, none can share the experience of or demonstrate the existence of a god, but part of me is left to wonder this: if an old, white-bearded face suddenly appeared in the wall beside me, muttered "Hello, Josh. You've just met God." and promptly vanished without a trace, I'd be hard pressed to convince anyone of the reality of my experience. Presume, I'm totally sober and not prone to sober hallucinations.

Just a hypothetical in the name of good philosophy.

4/3/2006 5:24:46 AM

where's my projector...

4/3/2006 8:16:46 AM

Quote :

"McDanger: You cannot even give me a method by which I could demonstrate God's existence or nonexistence.""

There’s no way to prove god doesn't exist. But there are potential ways to prove God does exist. Intelligent design says looks for clues. God appearing for a few press conferences would show he exists in a similar - look for physical evidence kind of way.

You can also try to reason your way to god. But these usually end up with countless little errors that you have to over look or modify to accept and by the time you get to the end they don't really hold together. Atleast as far as the ones I've studied go, but medieval Christian theologians and philosophers had such relatively poor understandings of the universe and science that its hard to blame them. Maybe more modern ones do it better. But I think if there was a reasonable argument that said you could lay out in a few steps and prove god to everyone then it would ruin the whole idea of faith.

As a supernatural entity, the burden of proof is on those who say are claiming its existence, not those who don't claim its existence since its not falsifiable. It can be proven to exist assuming God appears, has left enough clues, or reasoning can lead to an undeniable argument... but I think all that would eliminate the point of faith.

If what mcdanger meant was even if there is a god, you couldn't prove he doesn't exist b/c its non falisifiable & you couldn't even in theory prove there is a god no matter what happens then I would disagree with the section I bolded.

If what mcdanger meant was you can't prove god doesn't exist b/c its a nonfalifiable idea, and you can't prove he does exist b/c there just aren't enough clues/an obivous purely reason based argument then I agree. But if it was as simple as showing somebody footprints left by a lion, pictures of a lion, several lion witness reports, and the dna of lion to prove a lion existed to be part of a religion, I think that would really oversimplify religion and take away one of its most fascinating elements - faith.

[Edited on April 3, 2006 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2006 11:07:09 AM

Just got this update from the philosophy club that I think people participating in this dicussion might be interested in.

Quote :

">The ACLU at NCSU and the Wake County ACLU are partnering to host the Slater >Newman Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. The event is scheduled for >April 20 at 7pm in Caldwell Room G107. The event will feature panelists >from both sides, a philosopher and scientist on each. These panelists >include Dr. Douglas Jesseph, Professor of Philosophy at NCSU; Dr. Robert >Hambourger, Associate Professor of Philosophy at NCSU; John G. Gray, Jr, PhD >in Physiology, currently working in the private sector; and Dr. C. Gerald >Van Dyke, Professor of Botany at NCSU. Our panelists will each take a few >minutes at the beginning to present their views (in randomly selected >order), followed by a short response period; we will then segue into a Q&A >session, as we want this to be higly participatory. In the end, we'll have >closing remarks by each of our panelists to tie it all together. "

4/3/2006 2:37:47 PM

Quote :

"To what extent are you in charge of your own thoughts? Also, to what extent are you willing to extend validity to individual experience on the matter of "know[ing] about the existence of a god?" Clearly, none can share the experience of or demonstrate the existence of a god, but part of me is left to wonder this: if an old, white-bearded face suddenly appeared in the wall beside me, muttered "Hello, Josh. You've just met God." and promptly vanished without a trace, I'd be hard pressed to convince anyone of the reality of my experience. Presume, I'm totally sober and not prone to sober hallucinations. Just a hypothetical in the name of good philosophy."

Nothing is more powerful to someone than the experiences or delusions of their perceptions. When fantasy enters the equation, people are driven to see, hear, and believe things which are demonstrably not real.

Quote :

"There’s no way to prove god doesn't exist. But there are potential ways to prove God does exist. Intelligent design says looks for clues."

Intelligent design is also a load of bollocks. You can prove something does not exist if you prove the means by which it could possibly exist are not possible. However, since the very nature of God's existence is untestable, you cannot disprove nor prove anything.

Quote :

"But I think if there was a reasonable argument that said you could lay out in a few steps and prove god to everyone then it would ruin the whole idea of faith."

Religious thought is a beautiful mind-fuck. They have established a false virtue, "faith" as the highest of them all. Faith, by definition, is not only the highest virtue of their religion, but also the only way to participate. What you're saying is, religion's worth is in the fact that it must be accepted despite reason, when there is no good reason to believe in it. This blatant mishandling of reason is then transformed into the highest virtue, and as such is deemed untouchable and beyond criticism. Brilliant, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

Quote :

"As a supernatural entity, the burden of proof is on those who say are claiming its existence, not those who don't claim its existence since its not falsifiable."

You have mischaracterized my position yet again. I claim no knowledge of God's existence or non-existence. It is my firm position that we cannot know, not that we do not know.

Quote :

"f what mcdanger meant was even if there is a god, you couldn't prove he doesn't exist b/c its non falisifiable & you couldn't even in theory prove there is a god no matter what happens then I would disagree with the section I bolded."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm pretty burned out and exausted at the moment, let me rephrase what I think you said.

If what you're characterizing my position as is absolute inability to prove or disprove the existence of God, then you painted my argument correctly. What people seem to misunderstand is that since the existence is God is not provable or disprovable, that the question itself lacks meaning. It is gibberish. It's a trick where correct syntax yields no real meaning, and everybody gets confused.

Quote :

"If what mcdanger meant was you can't prove god doesn't exist b/c its a nonfalifiable idea, and you can't prove he does exist b/c there just aren't enough clues/an obivous purely reason based argument then I agree."

I guess you can't prove anything positively. What I'm saying is you cannot find corroborative evidence to support a hypothesis that isn't falsifiable, and you cannot disprove said-hypothesis either.

Quote :

"But if it was as simple as showing somebody footprints left by a lion, pictures of a lion, several lion witness reports, and the dna of lion to prove a lion existed to be part of a religion, I think that would really oversimplify religion and take away one of its most fascinating elements - faith."

There's nothing fascinating about faith. It's this planet's ultimate con.

4/3/2006 3:56:27 PM

Quote :

"That's a completely different point of mine -- that any sort of morality without a basis in a higher power is utterly insupportable and meangingless. It is also not a discussion I'm going to have here."

Well, make a thread whenever you're ready.

Quote :

"Kant claims to have one."

Kant doesn't know what he's talking about on pretty much everything.

4/3/2006 4:22:35 PM

Nice rebuttal to Kant. Not unlike the equally-poignant rebuttals he received in his day...

Quote :

"McDanger: Nothing is more powerful to someone than the experiences or delusions of their perceptions. When fantasy enters the equation, people are driven to see, hear, and believe things which are demonstrably not real."

What would make the experience fantasy? If it was true experience--i.e. not a lie on the experiencer's part to bolster the validity of belief in God, and happened exactly as I described, would you be able to claim it simply didn't happen?

In simpler terms, imagine you slept with a supermodel one day. Only, she'd never speak to you again, didn't leave you her number or address, and will never acknowledge the event happened so long as she lives. No pictures. No keepsakes. Would it be reasonable for me to proclaim your experience a delusion or fantasy if you told me about it? If so, would the reasonableness change the objective reality of the experience?

4/3/2006 9:17:28 PM

"You have mischaracterized my position yet again"

I find that hard to believe considering I made a few statements of my positions (where I said things like “atleast as far as I’ve studied… .or “I think…) and then said If you think X then I agree. If you think Y then I disagree. I don't see how there could be any mischaracterization there. If you don't think X or Y then don't take what I said as a response to you. To accuse me of mischaracterizing your position, after I admitted I didn't know exactly what it was by using several if then statements, seems like you're looking for a fight. Especially considering that I basically said I either almost completely or completely agree with alot of what you said.

"There's nothing fascinating about faith. It's this planet's ultimate con."

Even if thats all faith is then I still think its fascinating. If a good con job movie can be entertaining, then why is the ultimate highest of all cons that deals with life and death, epic battles between supernatural forces, and redemption and salvation as its themes not fascinating? If having faith in God turns out to be the right thing to do, over something thats not falsifiable, then its even more astounding.

4/3/2006 9:43:12 PM

Quote :

"If it was true experience--i.e. not a lie on the experiencer's part to bolster the validity of belief in God, and happened exactly as I described, would you be able to claim it simply didn't happen?"

We can play the "what-if" game all day. You're going to have to eventually prove something.

Quote :

"In simpler terms, imagine you slept with a supermodel one day. Only, she'd never speak to you again, didn't leave you her number or address, and will never acknowledge the event happened so long as she lives. No pictures. No keepsakes. Would it be reasonable for me to proclaim your experience a delusion or fantasy if you told me about it? If so, would the reasonableness change the objective reality of the experience?"

The only difference here is, this ACTUALLY happened. You could find forensic (I'm assuming any sexual contact I'd have with a famous model would be rape) evidence to prove it. Even if you couldn't, you could imagine a way by which you could gather such evidence.

4/3/2006 10:55:01 PM

Quote :

"If it was true experience--i.e. not a lie on the experiencer's part to bolster the validity of belief in God, and happened exactly as I described, would you be able to claim it simply didn't happen?"

People can "see god" on all kinds of hallucinogenic compounds. One large class of hallucinogens are the tryptamine compounds, dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and psilocybin (4-HO-DMT) are examples. DMT just so happens to be an extremely potent (And short lasting) tryptamine that is produced in the brain. It causes near death experiences, out of body experiences, experiencing the presence of aliens, experiencing the presence of "god," etc.

I will say that whatever happened with this individual claiming to have experienced god could have happened under the (Unintentional) influence of DMT. I do not believe that a supernatural being coexisted in the same reality with a human. To me it seems like it would defy many many scientific laws and shit.

[Edited on April 3, 2006 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2006 11:01:36 PM

Quote :

"McDanger: We can play the "what-if" game all day."

Quote :

"Gamecat: Just a hypothetical in the name of good philosophy."

Quote :

"McDanger: You're going to have to eventually prove something."

Why? The experience would have already taken place. What role would "proof" play in the experience? Simply put, none. Reality doesn't require proof.

The only obligation to prove anything would stem from a person's desire to persuade others to the reality of their experience. Proof or a lack thereof wouldn't change the fact of the experience one bit.

Quote :

"McDanger: The only difference here is, this ACTUALLY happened."

But if you couldn't prove it, how could I or anyone else be sure? Maybe you just dreamed about it--an explanation I'm sure the supermodel would suggest.

I'm sure that the hypothetical person who'd seen a god's face on a wall would argue that it ACTUALLY happened, too. With just as reasonable a case, I might add. Same sensory systems, different input.

Quote :

"McDanger: Even if you couldn't, you could imagine a way by which you could gather such evidence."

Including...?

---

Quote :

"SaabTurbo: I will say that whatever happened with this individual claiming to have experienced god could have happened under the (Unintentional) influence of DMT. I do not believe that a supernatural being coexisted in the same reality with a human. To me it seems like it would defy many many scientific laws and shit."

Of course that's a possibility, but it's hardly a certainty. It also doesn't rule out the reality of the experience. Perhaps the DMT merely attunes the brain, as Strassman suggests in The Spirit Molecule, to the realm/dimension/whatever where a person can directly perceive and interact with God/the gods/aliens/goblins. Highly speculative and unlikely, of course, but in the spirit of agnosticism: a totally distinct possibility.

BTW - this didn't really happen to anyone. It's purely a hypothetical.

4/3/2006 11:55:21 PM

Quote :

"Nice rebuttal to Kant. Not unlike the equally-poignant rebuttals he received in his day..."

Funny how you're defending someone whose book you describe as "incomprehensible". Whenever you do "figure out the basis", you'll hopefully realize it's all a bunch of mistaken assumptions and bad logic.

4/3/2006 11:56:14 PM

Don't mistake my description of that book as incomprehensible as an indictment of his other works. A Critique of Pure Reason is pretty fucking cool shit.

Quote :

"[user]ShivanBird[/user]: Whenever you do "figure out the basis", you'll hopefully realize it's all a bunch of mistaken assumptions and bad logic."

Oh, so you've read it?

I'm assuming you've figured out the basis. Could you let me know what it was? I'd like to know what specific mistaken assumptions and bad logic were used.

4/4/2006 12:01:43 AM

My apologies on not responding to you before Gamecat...

Let me repost here the relevant posts.

Quote :

"My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where the absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended."

to which I responded,

Quote :

"... Just like when Christians accept that there is a God and that the Bible is His inspired Word then there are no questions left, no theology to ponder, no questions in life that are grey,... No, Christians are just simpletons, incapable of the profundities that only the enlightened atheist or agnostic can partake. Sarcasm aside, Blind-faith is really a misnomer. Faith is not the end of rational thinking, rather the beginning."

to which you responded (the rest of my post I'll get to in a minute),

Quote :

"First of all, the quote you're referring to said belief, not theology is the death of intelligence, not rational thought. Neither pair are the same, but both are revealing of your true qualms with the statement. You're falling into the exact type of fallacious understanding that the quote was talking about: namely that a lack of blind faith in X presupposes a blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X. "

Notice that while the post starts with "belief" it went on to expand on that saying:

"believes a doctrine of any sort"

Clearly, this is at the heart of much discussion in theology. If you don't believe God exists there isn't much point in trying to understand his actions and attributes. So (at least some) students of theology do believe certain doctrines, yet it is not the end of thought. I was trying to speak to that point since it is fairly clear that, while his comments were somewhat general, it is religious dogma he had in mind as a primary example. I think the term "doctrine" tends to suggest a religious thought. All I was trying to say is that just because someone assigns some amount of certitude to some basic belief that in no way suggests that they stop thinking about that topic. It just suggests they think about the topic in a new way, it's not the end of thinking.

I do agree with the end of his paragraph: "a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything". Anyway, this is not the necessary consequence of having faith in God or accepting some set of doctrines.

I think that there is a counter phenomenon to his idea that "belief is the death of intelligence". In my own experience it is almost impossible to reach a conclusion unless you have assumptions to begin with. You have to believe in something otherwise there is no reason to think. You must affix certitude to something or else one is stuck. In short, just because you believe something is true that does not at all imply that all other associated issues are necessarily moot.

It's more like one of those little sliding panel puzzels. Different notions of what is basic render different questions meaningless. For example, I find the question "why did God create X in that way?" and interesting question, you on the other hand might not bother to ponder such a question because
you would pass it off as meaingless from the beginning.

Quote :

"Within theology there are numerous questions being pondered about numerous gods, many opinions and hypotheses, very few firm beliefs; rarely one laced with anything approaching certitude."

but, obviously I was not talking about theologians in general as you would have me do. I said

"Just like when Christians accept that there is a God and that the Bible is His inspired Word then there are no questions left, no theology to ponder"

Are there theologians that do not believe in God? Sure. But those are irrelevant to the point. My point is that the belief in God is not the end of rational thought about god. It is not my job to show you that all theologians believe like I do, the existence of even one who believes as I do and yet continues to rationally pursue questions about God indicates that Gribbins opinion is flawed.

Finally, last but not least,

Quote :

"Yes, after we assumed that electromagnetism was true then there was nothing left to think about. No inventions or applications or even things to ponder about why electromagnetism works as it does."

to which you responded,

Quote :

"What the hell do you mean "assumed that electromagnetism was true?""

Let me elaborate. There was a time when electromagnetism was not known to us. When we first discovered it (Maxwell and friends) I doubt they really had any idea of the technological applications it would have. E&M classically is basically just Maxwell's equations which relating E and B and the sources. Before we had technology that derived from this theory, people had to assume that it was true and use that as a working hypothesis. They didn't know for certain that E&M was true in the many cases that it is.

Physics progesses in this way all the time. People have faith in physics being true and they work very hard to get the data to fit with theory. Every so often this becomes impossible even for the most deft curve fitter and then we are forced to assume that a new theory of physics describes that phenomenon. The rules are that the new physics must match the old, and explain the new data. But after the new physics has gotten it's foothold then everyone is pressed to explain things in terms of that new theory. My point is simply that it is necessarily a bad thing to assume something to be true, it is in fact an important part of the thought process. Of course we should check our answers in the end.

g2g.

4/4/2006 1:51:51 AM

Quote :

"How many times do I have to utter the term "falsifiable" before it sinks in?"

No, I get it. I still haven't come up with more than a couple of important philosophical ideas that qualify, so it still sounds like you're telling me that philosophy is basically bunk. Most of everything from Socrates though Sarte seems like it isn't really falsifiable. I guess it was worthless.

Quote :

"Apply Occam's Razor and what we know about brain chemistry and human psychology. "

Occam's Razor is an occasionally useful guideline, not a hard and fast rule.

Quote :

"They were a product of scientific development within a specific scope -- the scope of the times."

Given the extremely limited "scope of the times" when many religions were created, I'm still not sure that you've shown the distinction.

Quote :

"I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong. "

And I'd be delighted if you would be honest and quit acting like you have so much respect for our abilities.

4/4/2006 2:16:30 PM

Quote :

"No, I get it."

No, you don't.

Quote :

"I still haven't come up with more than a couple of important philosophical ideas that qualify, so it still sounds like you're telling me that philosophy is basically bunk."

You are the strawman master. Now apply those brain cells to broadening your understanding of philosophy.

Quote :

"Most of everything from Socrates though Sarte seems like it isn't really falsifiable. I guess it was worthless."

I would argue with you that Socrates' philosophy was not worthless, rather destructive and poisonous. There are differing opinions in philosophy, you know.

Quote :

"Occam's Razor is an occasionally useful guideline, not a hard and fast rule."

Occam's Razor is more than occassionally useful. If you see and hear something that is not demonstrably there, is it more likely that you saw God than had a hallucination? What if your vision of God contradicts somebody else's? Whoops?

Quote :

"Given the extremely limited "scope of the times" when many religions were created, I'm still not sure that you've shown the distinction. "

Religions were meant to be an explanation of how the world came to be, why people should act a certain way, and the rewards in store for those who played ball. Lots of this stuff didn't "fit the data". Intelligent design seemed plausible back in the day, so they could work back to the assumption of a creator because of unity in nature. However, using this new premise to build more and more untestable theories and lines of reasoning is dubious.

Quote :

"And I'd be delighted if you would be honest and quit acting like you have so much respect for our abilities."

There's nothing wrong with your abilities. There is something wrong with your expectations.

4/4/2006 2:26:15 PM