* Physical things cannot affect non-physical things in any way. (IE, ideas are bulletproof.)
So, how does something non-physical cause something physical to happen? How does my ideas get my mouth to move? Additionally, how does biting my tongue "hurt," if physical things can't affect mental events?
How do you bridged the mind-body gap?
3:Granted on vague phrasing. "Can be expressed by" would have been better.
*Unsure. It's interesting, but not important to the point.
You still have it wrong.
Because you don't comprehend the implications of your wrongness.
Otherwise you wouldn't respond to
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
with
2: Numbers do not exist without each other, thus they might possibly be able to <i>continue</i> to exist* but could not begin to exist without something to start them. It comes to the same but this is possibly more clear.
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
It's a good thing mathematics isn't based on apples, then.
But if we're going to be facetious, you'll note that I never specified the size of the table.
I was going in another direction with the facetiousness, Hugseal jumped onto it for some reason. I assumed that the organization of the apples was of no concern and tried to find a novel avenue
I'm kind of happy you posted though, since I don't know how much longer I could have kept this up without feeling bad for the guy
You stadet that the numbers (or apples in this case) would collapse if amassed in large enough numbers therefore preventing infinity. And by the way, I heard that belitteling the people you are discussing with is a really good way to solidify your point.
You have put forth logic deductions without using logic deductions.
However I realize I am wasting my time since discussing with someone who creates their own reality and doesn't feel the need to base their claims on actual logic or science.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
If you don't believe in a soul, then of course you aren't going to accept any sort of dualistic argument as an answer.
But, I would very much like to believe in a soul. The idea is very appealing. The reason I don't isn't because I have some unreasonable dislike of duelists. On the contrary, reason is the reason I don't. I haven't seen someone use the soul in a reasonable explanation that stands up to scrutiny. This is mostly do to the illogical way people attempt to bridge the mind-body gap.
If a belief leads to a contradiction, then--logically--it's an incorrect belief.
I do not know the specifics on how the body and soul are linked together, but I think it's pretty clear if you believe in a soul, then you also accept that the body and soul do share some sort of link to each other.
Except you literally contradicted yourself in that explanation. As far as I can tell, you're simultaneously claiming the body must and can't interact with the soul.
Biting your tongue is a purely physical experience though, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with that. This hinges entirely though on whether you believe in a soul, so if you don't it isn't really a meaningful question.
Is pain a fully physical experience? Is experience a fully physical experience?
If a soul isn't a receptacle for experiences and memories--physical or otherwise--what is it?
I do not know the specifics on how the body and soul are linked together, but I think it's pretty clear if you believe in a soul, then you also accept that the body and soul do share some sort of link to each other.
Actually, pace Descartes and his pineal gland, a fair number of dualists would disagree. Leibniz may be the most prominent and extreme. And it's also a fairly common argument for idealism that it's incoherent for bodies and minds to interact, therefore the very existence of bodies must be some sort of illusion or misapprehension, therefore everything is mind. (In fact, this may be a better summary of Leibniz's beliefs, though traditionally he's classed as a dualist.)
But the real problem with what you're saying is that you're just starting with, "if you're a dualist..." That's a big "if". Can't you say anything about why we should or should not be dualists?
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
It's a good thing mathematics isn't based on apples, then.
But if we're going to be facetious, you'll note that I never specified the size of the table.
I was going in another direction with the facetiousness, Hugseal jumped onto it for some reason. I assumed that the organization of the apples was of no concern and tried to find a novel avenue
I'm kind of happy you posted though, since I don't know how much longer I could have kept this up without feeling bad for the guy
You stadet that the numbers (or apples in this case) would collapse if amassed in large enough numbers therefore preventing infinity. And by the way, I heard that belitteling the people you are discussing with is a really good way to solidify your point.
You have put forth logic deductions without using logic deductions.
However I realize I am wasting my time since discussing with someone who creates their own reality and doesn't feel the need to base their claims on actual logic or science.
Because, at a certain point, the mass would collapse as a result of the gravitational forces, etc etc etc.
To note, I have not belittled you. I made a joke based upon an analogy that I took farther than was intended.
While I obviously do not actually believe the proposition I stated, within the framework of the "apples to numbers" thing, there is a hard limit because fusion (or gravity being so strong it turns into a giant swarm of apple sauce or something, I don't know). My logic is solid, albeit based upon ridiculous premises, as was the point. This is a thread about trying to logic in a god, is it not?
As for "creating my own reality", maybe and maybe not. Is there not a long history of thought experiments in philosophy? Is that not "creating my own reality" in a time honored manner?
It is a portion of it in the same way that a box has a top part and a bottom part. There is a physical plane and a non-physical plane, both governed by different sets of rules.
But a top part and a bottom part are both physical parts.
That's my point. If this doesn't exist physically, in what way does it exist?
Concepts don't change. Our understanding of them changes.
That means our concepts change. You are describing a concept changing. If our way of conceptualizing something changes, that means our concept of it has changed.
There is a perfect set of rules that governs how our world works, ie, physics. We are basically just trying to reverse engineer what those rules are.
Wait, are you talking about natural laws, or are you talking about ideas? Because natural laws are completely different from ideas.
Yes, there are a set of natural laws, and yes, they don't change just because our understanding of them does.
But that's completely different from saying that concepts and ideas are these eternal things. In fact, you've just described why they're different. A natural law doesn't change just because our conception of it has changed. But our conceptions can change. We just said they did! You created a distinction between a natural law and an idea, so to make that distinction and then say, "But ideas are just like natural laws," is contradictory.
When we change what we mean about a particular concept, we're really just assigning that label to a different concept with a different definition.
How is that any different from an idea changing? Is not the definition of change the process of becoming different?
They are not subject to the same rules that define physical existence, like being made of matter, or losing its identity due to changes in its mass / energy state. We don't create thoughts, we discover them, sort of like digging up a treasure chest.
How can an idea precede the first person who ever thought of it?
You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am using an example of something that exists non-physically, ideas, to illustrate that the soul *could* exist that way. I am not claiming this as evidence that the soul exists,
Except, isn't that what you're doing?
Because if the existence of ideas is totally separate from the existence of souls, then you're basically going off on a tangent unless you believe that the existence of one has implications towards the existence of the other. Can you demonstrate why the existence of one would strengthen the case of the existence of the other?
Magicware999:
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
EE:
Correct, how we express our understanding of a thing does not matter to the reality or understanding of the thing itself. The word "Bank" has no meaning outside of that which we give it, but it still expresses the idea of something that does exist. Similarly, numbers express physical realities of nature.
Another way of putting it would be that if we begin to question our ability to communicate our understanding then we are calling into question our ability to understand in the first place. This leads to the "Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" nonsense.
Magicware999:
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
EE:
Correct, how we express our understanding of a thing does not matter to the reality or understanding of the thing itself. The word "Bank" has no meaning outside of that which we give it, but it still expresses the idea of something that does exist. Similarly, numbers express physical realities of nature.
Another way of putting it would be that if we begin to question our ability to communicate our understanding then we are calling into question our ability to understand in the first place. This leads to the "Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" nonsense.
Numbers absolutely have meaning outside what we have given them, in the sense that if there are three ducks there are three of them. This is true no matter if the word I use for three is 'three', 'ham sandwich' or 'Drei'. The meaning of the word "three" is given by people, but the fact of their being three objects is objective; numbers exist.
Or, more acurately, numbers can be derived a priori. The three ducks don't give a rats if no-one is there to work out how many of them there are; there are just three of them and that is fine.
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on. Thus, numbers have no intrinsic value of their own. Even stacked to infinity, relative value does not give any intrinsic value. With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist. Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists.
Thus it can be said there must be something which gives these numbers their real value, and this thing cannot itself be a number or governed by them (this means it cannot be a physical thing). Further, this force, in order not to have the same problem as the numbers it's propping up this force must be complete unto itself and require nothing else to give it value. Such a force would not be required by anything outside itself to create (give value to) the physical world. Thus, this force made a choice. To choose requires a mind. Thus it can be said the universe was created by a thinking being which is complete unto itself and independent of any governance.
This is not quite proof of the Abrahamic God, but it's getting very close, assuming all the logic can stand.
Yeah I don't agree with this... flawed logic. Just cos we have churches, doesn't mean we can prove God is real.
This is essentially what I think you're assuming, saying that because we have math/physics that God must have made it so. People believed in a god in whatever forms way before there was any seriously detailed math/physics. Maths and Physics in a general sense, has no bearing on, and nothing to do with, the possible existence of "God".
Correct, how we express our understanding of a thing does not matter to the reality or understanding of the thing itself. The word "Bank" has no meaning outside of that which we give it, but it still expresses the idea of something that does exist. Similarly, numbers express physical realities of nature.
I don't follow. Are you disagreeing with me, or are you agreeing?
Because agreeing with me is saying that your logic is wrong.
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god. The universe was created somehow. Yes, the Big Bang happened. But what happened before that? And if you say that another universe existed before that, but then what about that one? I personally don't believe in souls, an afterlife, or a god that cares at all about humans (though I really wish that I believed all of that), but I do know that matter cannot be generated from nothingness naturally and that the concept of nothingness cannot even exist in the natural world. So either the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding, which is completely possible, or a supernatural force or being created the universe.
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god. The universe was created somehow. Yes, the Big Bang happened. But what happened before that? And if you say that another universe existed before that, but then what about that one? I personally don't believe in souls, an afterlife, or a god that cares at all about humans (though I really wish that I believed all of that), but I do know that matter cannot be generated from nothingness naturally and that the concept of nothingness cannot even exist in the natural world. So either the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding, which is completely possible, or a supernatural force or being created the universe.
Even before we examine the actual logic, just by looking at the conclusion we can tell that this does not constitute a logical proof of God, because it does not definitively conclude that God exists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god. The universe was created somehow. Yes, the Big Bang happened. But what happened before that? And if you say that another universe existed before that, but then what about that one? I personally don't believe in souls, an afterlife, or a god that cares at all about humans (though I really wish that I believed all of that), but I do know that matter cannot be generated from nothingness naturally and that the concept of nothingness cannot even exist in the natural world. So either the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding, which is completely possible, or a supernatural force or being created the universe.
Even before we examine the actual logic, just by looking at the conclusion we can tell that this does not constitute a logical proof of God, because it does not definitively conclude that God exists.
While it might be proof, my position is this. Either a godlike being exists because of what I said (unless if I am wrong, which I admit is always possible on MTG Salvation) or we just don't understand the mysteries of the universe and this discussion is pointless.
Allowing for the possibility of God is absolutely insufficient as a proof for God's existence. Additionally, there is a physical explanation for an ex nihilo universe. Zero-energy universe. But, this isn't proven either, just allows for the possibility.
I too like the idea of God and like the idea that--while there might not be a clear purpose for my life--there is at least a reason for existence. However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
Yet, the start of the universe is a area where our understanding comply breaks down. We have no experience or experiment to draw upon to explain the birth of physics and the physical. Without explication, logic tells us to make no comment. Prudence says no bet should be made until such time more information is available. Simultaneously, mathematics tells us no more significant information WILL be given about this event. It is 'outside' of the body of knowledge our understanding CAN give us. A question without an answer.
Humans, however, aren't purely rational beings. We need to make choices in our life without complete information in order to survive. This tenancy to leap without looking is buried into our DNA as a necessarily survival instinct. So, while we know we can't know, it is natural--when logic and reason fails us--to guess.
Some of us--like Blinking Spirit and Elvish Crack Piper--guess that this world likely wasn't created for a reason. Some of us--like myself and Highroller--guess it was created for a reason. We all know, however, that this is a guess. And, if more information does--miraculously--come to light, we will adjust that guess accordingly.
I personally believe that there is one thing that is logical proof of god. The universe was created somehow. Yes, the Big Bang happened. But what happened before that? And if you say that another universe existed before that, but then what about that one? I personally don't believe in souls, an afterlife, or a god that cares at all about humans (though I really wish that I believed all of that), but I do know that matter cannot be generated from nothingness naturally and that the concept of nothingness cannot even exist in the natural world. So either the mysteries of the universe are beyond human understanding, which is completely possible, or a supernatural force or being created the universe.
How do you go from-
"The universe was created somehow."
"We don't know what caused the Big Bang or whether something existed before the Big Bang"
"We may never know"
To
"All the above therefore provides a logical proof of a God-like being"
Either a godlike being exists because of what I said (unless if I am wrong, which I admit is always possible on MTG Salvation) or we just don't understand the mysteries of the universe and this discussion is pointless.
(a) How godlike is "godlike" in your mind? You have made no argument that this first cause must, just to take for example one quality attributed to God, have a mind. If there were a first cause but it were mindless, would that still be a "godlike being" to you? Because if this is the route you take, then all you're basically saying is, "Whatever caused the universe, I'm just going to call it 'godlike'." Which is a pretty trivial claim; it tells us nothing about the qualities of the first cause. It's like saying, "Gremlins broke my car - and when I say that, I mean I have no idea what broke my car, but I'm just calling it 'gremlin-like' in the one respect that it's something that breaks cars."
(b) Anyone who claims we do understand the mysteries of the universe may safely be ignored. But if we didn't talk about what we don't understand, we'd never come any closer to understanding anything. And worse still, we may end up thinking we understand something quite wrongly, because no one else is serving as a reality check.
I too like the idea of God and like the idea that--while there might not be a clear purpose for my life--there is at least a reason for existence. However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
Some of us--like Blinking Spirit and Elvish Crack Piper--guess that this world likely wasn't created for a reason. Some of us--like myself and Highroller--guess it was created for a reason. We all know, however, that this is a guess. And, if more information does--miraculously--come to light, we will adjust that guess accordingly.
I'm "guessing" that the universe wasn't created for a reason in the same way I'm "guessing" that zebra mussels can't speak Middle English. I have no evidence whatsoever that they can, and all the evidence I have is that the only things that can belong to a circumscribed category of entity which does not include zebra mussels - i.e., language is a distinctly human characteristic. And that's just zebra mussels. In the grand scheme of things, zebra mussels are very similar to humans, and easy to understand. How vastly less believable is it that something as absolutely alien to our experience and incomprehensible as the first cause of the universe should exhibit a quality as mundane as reasoning? The idea is a quaint, parochial anthropomorphism, and nothing more.
I didn't flush out your specific beliefs in my post because it wasn't my place. I also know your reasons--BS--are likely more iron clad than Elvish Crack Pipers's.
I'm "guessing" that the universe wasn't created for a reason in the same way I'm "guessing" that zebra mussels can't speak Middle English. I have no evidence whatsoever that they can, and all the evidence I have is that the only things that can belong to a circumscribed category of entity which does not include zebra mussels - i.e., language is a distinctly human characteristic. And that's just zebra mussels. In the grand scheme of things, zebra mussels are very similar to humans, and easy to understand. How vastly less believable is it that something as absolutely alien to our experience and incomprehensible as the first cause of the universe should exhibit a quality as mundane as reasoning? The idea is a quaint, parochial anthropomorphism, and nothing more.
If this is meant to address most organized religions, I don't have much to comment on. However, if it was meant to address my own belief, agnostic deism, (as quoting me seems to imply) then I don't find the analogy to be at all fair. Fairness being something I was shooting for in my own post (I guess you feel I fell short of that mark?).
In typing that, I felt a little like I was making a special pleading argument. But, I will say that agnostic deism is a much easier position to defined then--say--Catholicism do to the miserly nature of the claims it makes. So before I launch into a full fledged defense of my beliefs, I just want to be sure you were--in fact--addressing me with your statements and weren't just making a critique of theists "in general."
But, I will say that agnostic deism is a much easier position to defined then--say--Catholicism do to the miserly nature of the claims it makes. So before I launch into a full fledged defense of my beliefs,
How does one "launch into a full fledged defense" of agnostic deism? Doesn't that contradict the whole "agnostic" part of it?
Some of us--like myself and Highroller--guess it was created for a reason.
I take issue with the word "guess" (I, by contrast, am NOT agnostic).
How does one "launch into a full fledged defense" of agnostic deism? Doesn't that contradict the whole "agnostic" part of it?
What--pray tell--do you think I've been doing all these years as an agnostic on these forums if not defending my beliefs? I'm pretty sure my post history answers your question of how I do it, at least. I'd speak for others but it seems....
I take issue with the word "guess" (I, by contrast, am NOT agnostic).
...that I've managed to upset both sides of the aisle already doing just that.
Anyway, alright, however you'd like it said. Certainly, it's your belief. I was trying to be unoffensive with those examples. Based on responses, clearly it wasn't my best work in that regard. Yet, I didn't know you professed to know of God's existence. However, going through some of my memories of your posts, I guess it makes sense that you would.
My apologies if you feel I was unfair in my characterization of your beliefs.
What--pray tell--do you think I've been doing all these years as an agnostic on these forums if not defending my beliefs?
No, but seriously, how do you defend that? Not saying your beliefs are wrong, I'm asking how do you launch into a full-fledged defense of your beliefs? Are you not, by your agnostic nature, yourself unsure of the truth of Deism?
So then how can you have a full-fledged defense of deism when you are agnostic towards it?
Verbal:
Numbers absolutely have meaning outside what we have given them, in the sense that if there are three ducks there are three of them. This is true no matter if the word I use for three is 'three', 'ham sandwich' or 'Drei'. The meaning of the word "three" is given by people, but the fact of their being three objects is objective; numbers exist.
Or, more acurately, numbers can be derived a priori. The three ducks don't give a rats if no-one is there to work out how many of them there are; there are just three of them and that is fine.
EE:
You happen to have stated one of my core beliefs: Reality is not determined by human perception. Failure to acknowledge this leads to a silly loop of "People need a reality to exist in" vs "Humans make reality." It's not what we're here for, but I've always found it fascinating.
What I intended was not, "What do they look like" but, "What are they?" If I can request without being rude you to reread the OP it will hopefully be clearer with this in mind.
Slave:
This is essentially what I think you're assuming, saying that because we have math/physics that God must have made it so. People believed in a god in whatever forms way before there was any seriously detailed math/physics. Maths and Physics in a general sense, has no bearing on, and nothing to do with, the possible existence of "God".
EE:
Everything has to do with it. It either is or is not created by this theoretical being and the current state in which it exists, assuming cause and effect remains immutable, will reflect that.
As to numbers specifically having no bearing here, they can be used to express and understand nature like a language, representing a thing without being the thing itself. In that way we can see that the same case could be effectively made, though it would require a different way of expressing it than mine. Same ideas couched in a new language.
Magicware999:
I don't follow. Are you disagreeing with me, or are you agreeing?
Because agreeing with me is saying that your logic is wrong.
EE:
Agreeing in the first sentence, explaining where I think the issue was in the rest. Although rereading you prior post I'm not entirely certain I follow what you were trying to say.
Taylor:
However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
EE:
You're trying to use logic to disprove the validity of logic. "Logic does not work here." "Why?" "Because of this logic." This is like trying to swing your sword at your sword.
I apologize if I missed any, I'm trying to stay relevant to the central idea here. And I'm still planning to try and read http://sqapo.com/kant.htm but haven't had the mental energy it deserves to devote to it.
Agreeing in the first sentence, explaining where I think the issue was in the rest. Although rereading you prior post I'm not entirely certain I follow what you were trying to say.
Quote from EmperorErvinmar »
2: Numbers do not exist without each other, thus they might possibly be able to <i>continue</i> to exist* but could not begin to exist without something to start them. It comes to the same but this is possibly more clear.
The issue with this is that you take numbers as if they mean anything at all. I said numbers in of themselves do not matter.
If you have two apples in front of you, then you have two apples in front of you. If you take one apple away, then you now have one apple in front of you. This is objective reality as best as we can interpret it. The fact that we chose to define the object as an apple and the total number as two is ultimately meaningless, 내가 무슨 언어를 쓰도 이 현실은 변하지 않아... (This reality doesn't change regardless of the language I use to express it).
Given this, "but could not begin to exist without something to start them" is a meaningless statement. Numbers are merely meant to express objective reality as we can see them, they have no function beyond that.
Straight Deism isn't my belief, so it wouldn't be genuine if I launched into a defense of it. But, Highroller, c'mon now, I've been debating on these forums for years, first as a "true agnostic" and currently as an "agnostic deist." BS and others are "agnostic atheists," surely, you've at least read them defending that position?
You don't remember those PAGES I wrote explaining the difference between "true agnosticism" and "agnostic atheism" to people who absolutely REFUSED to accept they were different? I must have done that on >5 different threads....
You didn't read the Bayesian Probability discussion between me and BS in which I attempted to show agnostic deism was just as reasonable as agnostic atheism as he attempted to show it wasn't? (If not, you're in luck because--much to my chagrin--I'm sure I'm headed to round 3 on that... Who knows, maybe I'll not make an ass out of myself this time around and actually get my point across. Stranger things have happened.)
Anyway--as far as I can remember--all I've ever done on this subforums is defend my beliefs. You can't make any claim correctly without backing it up. That's what we all do. My assertion is that uncertainty is the correct position. I feel that people--like yourself--are incorrect in asserting certainty in the face of what I assert to be a currently unanswerable question. All these assertions of mine necessarily carry with them the burden of proof and I'm a little miffed you seem to think I've never shouldered it.
Additionally,
If your claimed knowledge is correct, my belief isn't.
If BS is correct that agnostic atheism is more probable based on current knowledge, then my belief that agnostic atheism and agnostic deism are equiprobable is incorrect.
I need to (and thought I was) defend my beliefs against mutually exclusive ones, or be proven wrong in my own (which would necessitate a change of my beliefs, as it has so many times before).
EE:
You're trying to use logic to disprove the validity of logic. "Logic does not work here." "Why?" "Because of this logic." This is like trying to swing your sword at your sword.
How do you bridged the mind-body gap? I don't see how it's "oblivious" ideologies are non-physical. Aren't they just memes, and thus completely reducible to structures in brains?
You still have it wrong.
Because you don't comprehend the implications of your wrongness.
Otherwise you wouldn't respond to
with
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
You stadet that the numbers (or apples in this case) would collapse if amassed in large enough numbers therefore preventing infinity. And by the way, I heard that belitteling the people you are discussing with is a really good way to solidify your point.
You have put forth logic deductions without using logic deductions.
However I realize I am wasting my time since discussing with someone who creates their own reality and doesn't feel the need to base their claims on actual logic or science.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
If a belief leads to a contradiction, then--logically--it's an incorrect belief.
Except you literally contradicted yourself in that explanation. As far as I can tell, you're simultaneously claiming the body must and can't interact with the soul.
Is pain a fully physical experience? Is experience a fully physical experience?
If a soul isn't a receptacle for experiences and memories--physical or otherwise--what is it?
But, how can it be if you're saying it can't?
But the real problem with what you're saying is that you're just starting with, "if you're a dualist..." That's a big "if". Can't you say anything about why we should or should not be dualists?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because, at a certain point, the mass would collapse as a result of the gravitational forces, etc etc etc.
To note, I have not belittled you. I made a joke based upon an analogy that I took farther than was intended.
While I obviously do not actually believe the proposition I stated, within the framework of the "apples to numbers" thing, there is a hard limit because fusion (or gravity being so strong it turns into a giant swarm of apple sauce or something, I don't know). My logic is solid, albeit based upon ridiculous premises, as was the point. This is a thread about trying to logic in a god, is it not?
As for "creating my own reality", maybe and maybe not. Is there not a long history of thought experiments in philosophy? Is that not "creating my own reality" in a time honored manner?
That's my point. If this doesn't exist physically, in what way does it exist?
That means our concepts change. You are describing a concept changing. If our way of conceptualizing something changes, that means our concept of it has changed.
Wait, are you talking about natural laws, or are you talking about ideas? Because natural laws are completely different from ideas.
Yes, there are a set of natural laws, and yes, they don't change just because our understanding of them does.
But that's completely different from saying that concepts and ideas are these eternal things. In fact, you've just described why they're different. A natural law doesn't change just because our conception of it has changed. But our conceptions can change. We just said they did! You created a distinction between a natural law and an idea, so to make that distinction and then say, "But ideas are just like natural laws," is contradictory.
How is that any different from an idea changing? Is not the definition of change the process of becoming different?
How can an idea precede the first person who ever thought of it?
Except, isn't that what you're doing?
Because if the existence of ideas is totally separate from the existence of souls, then you're basically going off on a tangent unless you believe that the existence of one has implications towards the existence of the other. Can you demonstrate why the existence of one would strengthen the case of the existence of the other?
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
EE:
Correct, how we express our understanding of a thing does not matter to the reality or understanding of the thing itself. The word "Bank" has no meaning outside of that which we give it, but it still expresses the idea of something that does exist. Similarly, numbers express physical realities of nature.
Another way of putting it would be that if we begin to question our ability to communicate our understanding then we are calling into question our ability to understand in the first place. This leads to the "Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" nonsense.
Numbers absolutely have meaning outside what we have given them, in the sense that if there are three ducks there are three of them. This is true no matter if the word I use for three is 'three', 'ham sandwich' or 'Drei'. The meaning of the word "three" is given by people, but the fact of their being three objects is objective; numbers exist.
Or, more acurately, numbers can be derived a priori. The three ducks don't give a rats if no-one is there to work out how many of them there are; there are just three of them and that is fine.
Yeah I don't agree with this... flawed logic.
Just cos we have churches, doesn't mean we can prove God is real.
This is essentially what I think you're assuming, saying that because we have math/physics that God must have made it so. People believed in a god in whatever forms way before there was any seriously detailed math/physics. Maths and Physics in a general sense, has no bearing on, and nothing to do with, the possible existence of "God".
I don't follow. Are you disagreeing with me, or are you agreeing?
Because agreeing with me is saying that your logic is wrong.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
even my logic math catholic friend agree that god cannot be proven by logical standards
believe or not is an irrational thing (irrational as non rational), just deal with it
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While it might be proof, my position is this. Either a godlike being exists because of what I said (unless if I am wrong, which I admit is always possible on MTG Salvation) or we just don't understand the mysteries of the universe and this discussion is pointless.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I too like the idea of God and like the idea that--while there might not be a clear purpose for my life--there is at least a reason for existence. However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
Yet, the start of the universe is a area where our understanding comply breaks down. We have no experience or experiment to draw upon to explain the birth of physics and the physical. Without explication, logic tells us to make no comment. Prudence says no bet should be made until such time more information is available. Simultaneously, mathematics tells us no more significant information WILL be given about this event. It is 'outside' of the body of knowledge our understanding CAN give us. A question without an answer.
Humans, however, aren't purely rational beings. We need to make choices in our life without complete information in order to survive. This tenancy to leap without looking is buried into our DNA as a necessarily survival instinct. So, while we know we can't know, it is natural--when logic and reason fails us--to guess.
Some of us--like Blinking Spirit and Elvish Crack Piper--guess that this world likely wasn't created for a reason. Some of us--like myself and Highroller--guess it was created for a reason. We all know, however, that this is a guess. And, if more information does--miraculously--come to light, we will adjust that guess accordingly.
How do you go from-
"The universe was created somehow."
"We don't know what caused the Big Bang or whether something existed before the Big Bang"
"We may never know"
To
"All the above therefore provides a logical proof of a God-like being"
?
(b) Anyone who claims we do understand the mysteries of the universe may safely be ignored. But if we didn't talk about what we don't understand, we'd never come any closer to understanding anything. And worse still, we may end up thinking we understand something quite wrongly, because no one else is serving as a reality check.
Very well put.
I'm "guessing" that the universe wasn't created for a reason in the same way I'm "guessing" that zebra mussels can't speak Middle English. I have no evidence whatsoever that they can, and all the evidence I have is that the only things that can belong to a circumscribed category of entity which does not include zebra mussels - i.e., language is a distinctly human characteristic. And that's just zebra mussels. In the grand scheme of things, zebra mussels are very similar to humans, and easy to understand. How vastly less believable is it that something as absolutely alien to our experience and incomprehensible as the first cause of the universe should exhibit a quality as mundane as reasoning? The idea is a quaint, parochial anthropomorphism, and nothing more.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If this is meant to address most organized religions, I don't have much to comment on. However, if it was meant to address my own belief, agnostic deism, (as quoting me seems to imply) then I don't find the analogy to be at all fair. Fairness being something I was shooting for in my own post (I guess you feel I fell short of that mark?).
In typing that, I felt a little like I was making a special pleading argument. But, I will say that agnostic deism is a much easier position to defined then--say--Catholicism do to the miserly nature of the claims it makes. So before I launch into a full fledged defense of my beliefs, I just want to be sure you were--in fact--addressing me with your statements and weren't just making a critique of theists "in general."
I take issue with the word "guess" (I, by contrast, am NOT agnostic).
...that I've managed to upset both sides of the aisle already doing just that.
Anyway, alright, however you'd like it said. Certainly, it's your belief. I was trying to be unoffensive with those examples. Based on responses, clearly it wasn't my best work in that regard. Yet, I didn't know you professed to know of God's existence. However, going through some of my memories of your posts, I guess it makes sense that you would.
My apologies if you feel I was unfair in my characterization of your beliefs.
So then how can you have a full-fledged defense of deism when you are agnostic towards it?
That seems contradictory.
Numbers absolutely have meaning outside what we have given them, in the sense that if there are three ducks there are three of them. This is true no matter if the word I use for three is 'three', 'ham sandwich' or 'Drei'. The meaning of the word "three" is given by people, but the fact of their being three objects is objective; numbers exist.
Or, more acurately, numbers can be derived a priori. The three ducks don't give a rats if no-one is there to work out how many of them there are; there are just three of them and that is fine.
EE:
You happen to have stated one of my core beliefs: Reality is not determined by human perception. Failure to acknowledge this leads to a silly loop of "People need a reality to exist in" vs "Humans make reality." It's not what we're here for, but I've always found it fascinating.
What I intended was not, "What do they look like" but, "What are they?" If I can request without being rude you to reread the OP it will hopefully be clearer with this in mind.
Slave:
This is essentially what I think you're assuming, saying that because we have math/physics that God must have made it so. People believed in a god in whatever forms way before there was any seriously detailed math/physics. Maths and Physics in a general sense, has no bearing on, and nothing to do with, the possible existence of "God".
EE:
Everything has to do with it. It either is or is not created by this theoretical being and the current state in which it exists, assuming cause and effect remains immutable, will reflect that.
As to numbers specifically having no bearing here, they can be used to express and understand nature like a language, representing a thing without being the thing itself. In that way we can see that the same case could be effectively made, though it would require a different way of expressing it than mine. Same ideas couched in a new language.
Magicware999:
I don't follow. Are you disagreeing with me, or are you agreeing?
Because agreeing with me is saying that your logic is wrong.
EE:
Agreeing in the first sentence, explaining where I think the issue was in the rest. Although rereading you prior post I'm not entirely certain I follow what you were trying to say.
Taylor:
However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
EE:
You're trying to use logic to disprove the validity of logic. "Logic does not work here." "Why?" "Because of this logic." This is like trying to swing your sword at your sword.
I apologize if I missed any, I'm trying to stay relevant to the central idea here. And I'm still planning to try and read http://sqapo.com/kant.htm but haven't had the mental energy it deserves to devote to it.
The issue with this is that you take numbers as if they mean anything at all. I said numbers in of themselves do not matter.
If you have two apples in front of you, then you have two apples in front of you. If you take one apple away, then you now have one apple in front of you. This is objective reality as best as we can interpret it. The fact that we chose to define the object as an apple and the total number as two is ultimately meaningless, 내가 무슨 언어를 쓰도 이 현실은 변하지 않아... (This reality doesn't change regardless of the language I use to express it).
Given this, "but could not begin to exist without something to start them" is a meaningless statement. Numbers are merely meant to express objective reality as we can see them, they have no function beyond that.
You don't remember those PAGES I wrote explaining the difference between "true agnosticism" and "agnostic atheism" to people who absolutely REFUSED to accept they were different? I must have done that on >5 different threads....
You didn't read the Bayesian Probability discussion between me and BS in which I attempted to show agnostic deism was just as reasonable as agnostic atheism as he attempted to show it wasn't? (If not, you're in luck because--much to my chagrin--I'm sure I'm headed to round 3 on that... Who knows, maybe I'll not make an ass out of myself this time around and actually get my point across. Stranger things have happened.)
Anyway--as far as I can remember--all I've ever done on this subforums is defend my beliefs. You can't make any claim correctly without backing it up. That's what we all do. My assertion is that uncertainty is the correct position. I feel that people--like yourself--are incorrect in asserting certainty in the face of what I assert to be a currently unanswerable question. All these assertions of mine necessarily carry with them the burden of proof and I'm a little miffed you seem to think I've never shouldered it.
Additionally,
If your claimed knowledge is correct, my belief isn't.
If BS is correct that agnostic atheism is more probable based on current knowledge, then my belief that agnostic atheism and agnostic deism are equiprobable is incorrect.
I need to (and thought I was) defend my beliefs against mutually exclusive ones, or be proven wrong in my own (which would necessitate a change of my beliefs, as it has so many times before).
Smarter men than me have already gotten the sword to hit itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
Logic can most certainly be used to show the limitations of logic. What else would you use?
Surely, you feel logic has limits. But, how would you come to that conclusion without using logic?