@MyContext And herein lies the mistake: you've made the assumption that I want you to believe what I believe. It's understandable; most Christians are like that... And Atheists, Muslims, Communists, Republicans, Feminists, Packers fans, yoga instructors, etc, etc. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it, and I have no interest in arguing anyone into submission to my beliefs. I don't have a problem with Bertrand; just with his more militant followers.
@gamesguru Bertrand is pretty easy to refute, actually, because as an atheist, he had prejudices, as all people who hold strong beliefs do. Quick example: when he says there is no reason to believe in God, he's really saying that there is no scientific reason to believe in something that, if it exists, must certainly transcend science. That's like me grading someone's math homework for proper spelling and grammar, rather than for mathematical skill. Russell is a strong mind, but not infallible.
@danielhmanning I grant one could make up a reason. However, is there a good reason? A reason that has actual support? He is simply pointing out there if there is no justification for the claim what are the merits of making the claim? See my profile regarding the ULINK if you miss the point...
@MyContext LOL... If I miss the point? No, I think I got the point just fine, but thanks for your concern.
As far as support goes, what kind are you willing to accept? Even better: if I know for absolute certain that God is real, would you allow me to believe in him without calling me ignorant?
@danielhmanning I may disagree or find your claim lacking, however, ignorant is off the table given your commentary...:)
What reason do you have that would be reasonable to someone who does NOT already share your position? Since, this is the only criteria that I have for considering whether something is reasonable in general. There have been many positions that I have not agreed with, but I saw the reason in their claims.
@MyContext I do understand having beliefs that have no support, however, I do not expect anyone to just agree to them. I still believe that people can be better, however, given the general state of affairs - it really doesn't look like such a notion is reasonable, however, I find working toward such a goal worth the effort.
Fair enough, in Australia catholic is by far the biggest religion, NZ would be catholic also Asia is buddism so there would be over 2 billion people not accounted for in this map around Asia, really i dunno why i give a fuck, i'm in that so called 2.4% seeing is believing dont believe everything you read, my ancestors where here 50 000 years ago that we know of, & the bible says god created everything when? oil takes how long to create as does coal, ahh yeah enough from me..
A repost for easier read: Part I: Set A: The Universe. Set B: Ideas. Set C: Graphics viewed through a lens. Set D: Graphics and words read from a monitor. Operator 1: Telescope, F1. Operator 2: Keyboard and a mouse, F2. Sets A and B are nonobservables. Sets C and D are observables. Operators make nonobservables observable.
A two-part monk chant—to be looped, read, and meditated three times a day. Part I: Set A: The Universe Set B: Ideas Set C: Graphics viewed through a lens Set D: Graphics and words read from a monitor Operator 1: Telescope, F1 Operator 2: Keyboard and a mouse, F2 Sets A and B are nonobservables. Sets C and D are observables. Operators make nonobservables observable.
Bertrand Russel is one of my favorite philosophers, I've read a few of his other essays and his writing style for me is a bit difficult to keep up with, but great stuff nonetheless.
HA!!! I was JUST realizing that Ayn Rand and Bertrand Russell were popular at the same time and was JUST on google looking it up. I then decide I don't care and look at youtube to find good old C0nc0rdance made a video about Bertrand. =) it was pretty cool.
Russell was the second skeptic I read; Sagan the first. I liked him more than other philosophers, because I actually understood what he said - or at least thought I did.
For example, if we create a species of creature capable of understanding morality, teach them that killing members of their species is immoral, and then we go and kill members of their species, we would be bound by their inevitable decision that we were acting immorally, since they were our own rules.
I've answered this twice already: if WE are the ones teaching them what is moral and immoral, then YES, we ARE bound by their decision if we commit acts on them that we told them were immoral, or else we would be hypocritical.
In addition, if we teach them a system of morality, then use a different system ourselves when interacting, or more importantly, when judging what they do, we'd be hypocrites, and not worthy of judging them, period.
As I said, if we teach them which actions are moral, and which are immoral, and then subject them to immoral treatment, they jave every right to judge us by the criteria we taught them, especially if we profess to have a higher level of morality.
@Avicaris And again, there is no question as to can the animals judge us as immoral, the question is are we as the creators bound by the morality of what we create. If an animal judges you as immoral do you accept that moral judgment?
Or as an alternate and even more extreme position, what if we create something which comes to a behavior which is inherently amoral, it does not recognize right or wrong as valid concepts, are we then bound to accept that behavior as well.
@SuperWorldwide23 There is no energy in the universe, while this seems irrational, all the negative and positive energy when measured exactly balance out. Our current understanding is that at one point in the distant past there was no separation and thus no energy, positive or negative, anywhere.
Now as to why physics is as it is and not some other way, how come gravity is not attractive for example, or why isn't the speed of light equal to the speed of sound - we do not know at this time.
Gramos, you should probably stop trying to use Ray Comfort's flawed "reasoning"(and I can't stress enough how loosely I use that term) around people who know how big of a fallacy it is.
If we create beings capable of understanding morality, then teach it what actions constitute being moral or immoral, and command them to judge each other by what we've taght them, then commit acts upon them that we've said are immoral by our standards, yes they have absolutely every right to judge us.
@Avicaris Note, there is no contention that the animals we create do not have the right to have a morality, the question is are we as the creators bound to that morality?
What will happen to you when you die? Have you ever told lies, stolen, used God's name in vain? If yes, then you are a liar, theif, and a blasphemer. When you die & stand before God you'll be guilty of breaking His law. The bible says you'll end up in Hell! But God sent God his Son Jesus to die on a cross for your sins, & He rose from the dead on the third day. If you'll believe the Gospel(Jesus died for your sins & was resurrected) for the forgiveness of your sins, you'll have eternal life!
There is one simple answer to dogma: Prove it. Show me objectively that your god has these properties and I will concede my position.
For my own part, I assert that there is a SuperGod that created and rules your god. Your god is the property of SuperGod, and there are no properties of your god that SuperGod did not grant to her.
@C0nc0rdance If you are performing numerical analysis and testing the hypothesis of correlation between A and B against the null hypothesis (any and all ways that the observables could exist without a correlation, just through random chance) - does it make any sense for me to ask you to test against the super null hypothesis which is the null hypothesis -plus- other all other random ways that the observables could manifest in the pattern noted without an actual correlation?
@SuperWorldwide23 "Obviously it is not about the evidence." Assuming the existence of a god who can willingly blind some people to reality (or interfere in any other way), all evidence is in question. We can't "know" that one car has a higher maximum speed, it might just be god giving it a boost, or skewing the perspective of all of the on lookers. Even if everything you say is completely true, you are insane and stupid if you expect someone to believe it, knowing full and well they can't.
@JoesephKatana Yes, Sir, evidence can be subjectively interpreted and blind to someone. If you don't understand that, you are denying the existence of arts. Are we living in a world guided only by formulae?
@CDprof007 I can see the art work and have the artistic qualities explained to me, art is a matter of opinion and taste, that's a far cry from all of the evidence of god in the entire universe being completely invisible to me but completely visible to someone else. Its even further from saying that some invisible being is intentionally blinding me to the existence of that evidence. Surely you see the difference.
@JoesephKatana Let's be more focused, Is art an evidence? I would argue that it is. Otherwise, the whole discipline of archaeology has to go down the drain.
@CDprof007 Evidence of what? How is archaeology an art? Just because you're unearthing art, that doesn't make it art. I don't buy the creation equals creator argument, which is apparently what you're getting at. We know what sort of beings produce artifacts, which is why we put so much work into unearthing them. If there was a larger creative entity that had the option of placing false evidence, that would throw would put archeology in question.
@JoesephKatana That is an interesting point, yes if there was a God then he could magically make anything happen, but that is always the case when you are testing any scientific hypothesis - there are always unknowns that can effect the system in various ways, the scientific method is so designed to categorize them. This would only be a problem (for science) if God existed and deliberately manifested in chaotic laws of nature, i.e., God was a Cthulhu type being.
@CliffStamp Oh sort of like when the god of the bible manifests itself through floods and plagues? Sort of like how young earth creationists are convinced he fabricated the fossil record and the rest of the universe in its present state to deceive people? Sort of like how every god in history has popped up in a gap of knowledge where things are apparently chaotic and not understandable? Sort of like how your god has retreated to the uncertain origins and the depths of the human mind?
@JoesephKatana While there are young earth creationists who do advocate fairly extreme positions, they can not be used to characterize the argument in summary. That would be like concluding that Hitler represents the manifestation of science (he argued for selection). There are always nuts to put it kindly in any widespread propositional argument, if you want to understand the paradigm of suffering then see the works of Hicks and Leibnitz.
@JoesephKatana However I do not see how you could argue that the act of the flood was an act of chaos when it was a deliberate and known manifestation. Your original problem was that if there was a God then it could manifest constantly in creating a chaotic universe where the order of nature was non-existent (you specifically noted that Newton's laws would not be valid). I do not see where you see God behaving like that in a deceptive manner in the Bible.
@CliffStamp Can you name a single story in the bible where god isn't deceptive? Do you think he warned the entire earth before noahs flood? Did he tell adam and eve they'd be the founders of humanity if they ate the fruit, instead of telling them they'd die? How about the tower of babel? or the whole creation thing, where he apparently leaves evidence contrary to his existence.
Even if this is non literal, then he allowed his book to be deceptive.
@JoesephKatana The flood is a purge, the tenants were made clear before the flood they were not followed hence the flood, that was not deception. It would be deception if people were killed in the flood who followed the commandments. Adam and Eve would not have understood that they would be the founders of humanity before eating the fruit, simply because there are problems interpreting scripture does not mean scripture is deceptive.
@JoesephKatana You may first want to define deceptive because you appear to be using it in a non-straightforward manner. If I teach a class and at the end of it the students are arguing over what was presented and how to interpret it, does that imply that I was being deceptive? Do you really think that anytime you are not 100% clear on what someone is telling you that they are being deceptive in their presentation?
@CliffStamp If you teach a class and there is disagreement of what you taught, it definitely implies you aren't an omnipotent perfect teacher. If you teach a class and tell one or two of your students to bring scuba gear the next day, because you intend to flood the classroom and kill them all, then yes, you are definitely deceptive and extraordinarily evil.
@JoesephKatana Ok, how does it logically follow that if students disagree on the interpretation of information presented that there was a lack of ability on the part of the teacher, knowing of course that the students have free will and individual conscious and unique reasoning.
Are you really asserting that the classroom flood is analogous to the Biblical flood? And are you stating that all punishment is inherently deceptive and evil?
@CliffStamp I'm implying that killing everyone with drowning while only warning a few is deceptive. Even death row inmates know how and why we intend to kill them. Are you implying that everyone on earth, including the young children, knew gods laws and chose to disobey them, therefore deserving an unexpected cruel death? I mean, if everyone on earth was aware of gods will, he should have left it alone, now the worlds less then 1/3 christian. What poor management your god has.
@JoesephKatana The Bible does have God manifesting itself in non-natural ways (water into wine) but it is a known manifestation. It is not like God show up at a water treatment facility and turns water into wine for the lols sending the experimentalists into a frenzy and then repeats this pattern at random intervals for its own amusement.
@JoesephKatana Ironically, it is only through the definition of God as an absolute and eternal, can it be stated with certainty that the universe and its nature are also absolute. Without this assertion there is no requirement that gravity does not suddenly invert and become repulsive for example. If you would state with certainty that the nature of the universe does exist as an absolute then from what does this constraint originate?
@CliffStamp Lets say that you had absolute proof that your god made the laws of physics, you still have all your work ahead of you proving that he must be the christian version of god. On top of that, you have massive loads of work to do if you want to convince me that such a being is worthy of worship or adoration.
If you want to know about the laws of physics and the nature of matter, you should read up on it, it has little bearing on this argument.
@JoesephKatana Yes the argument is non-trivial to move from deism to theism to a particular theism, that is why there is such a volume of work on the subject, no one argues this entire argument can be reduced a comment box.
My assertion was relating to you comment that God implied a chaotic universe as if anything without an external constraint, the universe can not be held as absolute, if you think it can from natural methodology itself I would be curious to see the argument.
@CliffStamp If you want to know about the natural laws and their origins, its an interesting and in depth field of physics. Claiming that the existence of natural laws implies god is just as lame as implying that the existence of the universe implies god, except with the added stipulation that your god created the laws with the intention of regularly violating them to emphasize a point, because clearly millions of gallons of water is a more effective communication method then speech.
@JoesephKatana I did not claim the existence of natural laws implies a God, I noted that without an external constraint then the nature laws can not be asserted to be absolute.
Again, if you think you can make this assertion through natural methodology then I would be curious to hear the argument.
The Christian God did speak to the people through previous prophets, however they exercised free will and ignored it.
@CliffStamp "External constraint" The system operates itself through forces and energy and all the other physical concepts I've invited you to read more about. Are you implying that forces and energy are impossible without something outside of the universe guiding it? If you want to follow tradition and put a big supernatural stamp on the unknown, go for it. But know that the supernatural has never usefully explained anything, and that its still far far away from the christian god.
@JoesephKatana No, I have asked, if you are asserting that the universe is absolute without a God as you seemed to imply when you stated that God would render nature as Chaotic, by what means can you argue though natural methodology that nature both has absolute characteristics and the properties of said characteristics. I have asked you several times for references to "read more about it", you still have not provided any, by all means do so.
@CliffStamp Do you really expect me to spoon feed you every piece of knowledge? These things are widely available, but if you insist on feigning the inability to find it, I offer you the wikipedia article on the Big_Bang as a starting point for your research. I gave up trying to educate people on such things when I had a creationist tell me that "god made it that way to test our faith" after twelve pages of private messages explaining evolution.
@JoesephKatana I did not ask you to spoon feed anything, I asked for specific peer reviewed published articles, you could not seriously be contending that Wikipedia is such.
However, I would be interested where in that article you think that your assertions are held and what empirical evidence you think it provides.
A more appropriate place for the absolute nature of the universe is not the big bang theory, but the anthropomorphic principle which deals with the constraint.
@CliffStamp Oh and when I say regularly violating the natural laws, I mean only in the presence of a particularly backwards and superstitious group of people, not to appear before clearly them and give amazing advancements that would make them a shining example of mankind, but to reinforce the values and superstitions that they already held. Strangely no one was independently recording these events, but to be fair they may have been caught up in one of many god ordered genocides in the bible.
@JoesephKatana Are you really making the assertion that all Christians are backwards and superstitious? You are aware that many prominent current scientists are Christians, even those such as Ken Miller who defends the theory of evolution - while being a devout Christian at the same time. Where is your empirical evidence, published in peer reviewed journals (psychology, neuroscience, etc.) that atheists are more advanced and rational than religious people?
@CliffStamp No I'm saying that the miracles suddenly disappear when there's no superstitious people around. And even perfectly rational people can be duped using psychologically studied and documented techniques to indoctrinate them to believe totally irrational things.
Just seeing some of the insane and contradicting beliefs that intelligent people can hold should be all the reason you need to discard a contradictory book written thousands of years ago that disagrees with the rest of history.
@JoesephKatana So again, are you asserting that religion is nothing more than a superstition and do you have any empirical evidence to support this conclusion based on peer reviewed papers in the literature. Or are you simply asserting a personal belief, which is reached without empirical evidence as fact. Surely you are not claiming the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? That problem of deduction has been challenged in the philosophy of science directly (Popper et al.).
@CliffStamp So what if I am? Why do you suddenly have such an issue with personal beliefs?
Seriously though, you're the one presenting the claim without evidence, that the world was flooded and god isn't deceptive as portrayed in the bible, and that his existence is clear in the world, and you have the nerve to ask me for empirical evidence? You too think that religion is nothing more then superstition, except of course for Christianity. Wheres your evidence for dismissing the others?
@JoesephKatana If all you have is a personal belief then how can you possibly demand empirical evidence of anyone else, you are now committing a clear case of special pleading.
Where did I claim there was empirical evidence for the flood, existence of god, and assert that Religion is superstition?
I did contend that God as described in the Bible was not deceptive using simply the definition of deceptive and scripture itself.
@CliffStamp So where is your evidence for the personal belief you hold that hindism isn't the one true religion? What about Zeus, wheres your evidence to prove him wrong? What about the gigantic invisible ogre who occasionally reorganizes your furniture but alters your mind to not notice it? I notice a profound lack of empirical evidence on your part to deny all of these belief systems.
@JoesephKatana We were discussing a statement you made, surely you would not contend that the flaws in your argument are justified if the same flaws would be present in mine, nor that it is a justified consideration in a discussion that when an issue is raised that it be ignored and instead a content be made in the opposing argument. Do you think that is how science conducts itself?
@JoesephKatana Where did I assert that you could not hold a belief without empirical evidence, or that lack of empirical evidence was indication that an assertion was false? You were the one making such demands and when it was asked if you had any for the many and numerous assertions you made you admitted that they were all beliefs without empirical evidence. That is clearly special pleading.
@JoesephKatana Are you asserting that the big bang theory argues that the universe is constrained to be as it is, that the nature of the physical laws are constrained as absolutes? The big bang theory does not even deal with the conditions of the early universe as we still have not unified quantum theory and relativity so can not probe into the plankt epoch so how could the nature even be known let alone constrained as an absolute.
@JoesephKatana You have made assertions which are both extreme in nature characterizing other people are superstitious, easily deceived and mislead simply because they are religious.
You have no empirical proof of any of this, you can cite no literature to support this diagnosis, yet you attack the nature of those who have theistic faith without empirical proof?
@CliffStamp Who is the one making extreme assertions here? You're the one who believes in an invisible god who escapes detection! You're the one who insists that its true! I assert nothing but the simple fact that it is not true, I dismiss it with every bit of certainty that I dismiss every single other religion that has failed to provide any evidence.
I didn't say it was a matter of faith on my part, I said if it were why would you have a problem with it? Thought you liked faith...
@JoesephKatana You have made many assertions, among them that religion is a superstition, that the universe is constrained absolutely, that religious people are easily deceived, you have noted that scripture is inconsistent, that the definition of God is contradictory, etc. . You are the one attacking a position for lack of empirical evidence, at not one point did I make any such contention.
@CliffStamp My position is one of rejecting your position on the grounds of lack of evidence. If you have a problem with rejecting claims without evidence, are you able supply evidence that any of the various myths you don't believe are untrue? I'm in the same position, I just throw one more absurdity in the bin. I said IF it was a belief on my part, why would you have a problem with it, being a person of faith and all. I just reject your position on the grounds of no evidence
@JoesephKatana Now your position has changed completely, you went from making a diagnosis about behavior and categorizing scripture and religious as being logically inconsistent to simply refusing to make any assertions at all, denying past posts and now sitting back and simply asking for empirical evidence. Now if you want to reject an assertion based on the fact there is no empirical evidence that is a completely different line of argument but we can start over from there easily.
@JoesephKatana If your position is simply that you reject theism as there is no empirical evidence then I would ask do you reject the existence of the universe. if you do not then what is your empirical evidence that the universe exists, and further that it exists as we experience it - and note your evidence here has to be both demonstrable and falsifiable, and of course peer reviewed and published.
Rejecting the existence of the universe is as silly as rejecting the existence of the mind, its an emergent property of parts that can be individually affirmed or rejected. What does that have to do with arguing for god?
@JoesephKatana Again, I never asked you if you rejected the existence of the universe, I asked you what is your empirical evidence for its existence. You have already noted that you reject Religion as there is no empirical evidence and thus extending your argument that logically follows.
@JoesephKatana The assertion of the existence of the universe is nontrivial and the subject of considerable study by both philosophers of science and scientists themselves who founded natural methodology (science). The very first issue they had to deal with was the assertion that science actually provided knowledge as they did not want to just hold this as a predicate but actually prove this was true, they could not - if you can't by your own logic you have to reject it.
@CliffStamp And like I said, its as absurd as trying to disprove your mind when you are unable to reside outside of it. One is incapable of making observations without a mind just as one is incapable of making observations if there is no universe. However, the minds components can be observed and tested individually without destroying the entire system, just as the universe can be evaluated as the sum of its parts.
Why would anyone see this as a reason to give up and declare it supernatural?
@JoesephKatana Again, no one has made an assertion that because the universe can not be proven empirically to exist that it is empirical proof of God.
However you have rejected the concept of God because there is no empirical evidence, yet now you hold that you accept the concept of an actualized universe with no empirical evidence.
This then shows that it is not empirical evidence that you are using as your standard of reason but something else, so what is that something else?
@JoesephKatana This problem of proof of existence as noted is well known and studied in the history of the philosophy of science and in science itself, are you really now declaring all of those people such as Decartes who founded natural methodology as absurd? Is this another personal and original belief you hold or can this proposition be found in any critical reviews of his works? Not that there is anything wrong with unique criticism, just curious if that is the nature of the statement.
@JoesephKatana The fact that natural methodology is advocated as a system to generate knowledge and that it can not affirm or deny (demonstrate or falsify) the actual foundational tenants is to you really both not a problem at all, and even more than that to even raise the concern and question the foundational tenants is absurd? And, at the same time you see no parallel at all between that reasoning and theism?
@CliffStamp I'm unfamiliar with this idea, it sounds absurd, ill founded and useless. It starts with a word that has been assigned to an idea (always a bad start) namely the existence of everything, which by definition can not be disproved because we be around to observe it if it didn't. Its just as absurd as saying you can't prove the forest exists while you're in the forest, because you haven't observed a non-forest.
@CliffStamp We've created the very definition we are trying to disprove, which is trees and the space between them, both of which we can test for and both of which imply the existence of the forest we are in. Just as I would define the universe as being matter, energy and the empty space between, I can verify the existence of these and therefore ascertain that what I'm in fits the definition I've imposed on myself. Not that it matters, because we can define the universe as being what we are in
@JoesephKatana Would you really define the universe as that which we experience because that is not how science defines it. Consider the fact that at one point we (humanity) did not have the ability to observe the universe as we do now (if you accept evolution). Does that mean the universe did not exist at that point of time? Note as well your definition is problematic because it would be similar to for example if I defined Bigfoot to be what people experience as Bigfoot.
@CliffStamp I was pointing out the flaws of defining it, sorry if that wasn't obvious for you.
So what if there's over nine thousand dimensions? If they can interact with our reality, they can be measured and observed. If they can't, they might as well be totally adjunct and for all practical purposes do not exist.
It doesn't matter if what we experience is what exists, what matters is that it behaves in a consistent way.
Do you have some round about way to link this to theism?
@JoesephKatana The central argument is that you reject theism because it is a position without empirical evidence, again, the foundational assertions of science are themselves without empirical evidence and thus you, by your own argument, have to reject the existence of the universe unless you can actually, at a minimum, define an experiment which can demonstrate and/or falsify it.
@JoesephKatana Note that if you simply define the universe to be what we observe and knowledge to be what we infer from the scientific method, then you have no external framework for the truth of your assertions, they are inherent definitions.
Theism could easily counter this with the universe is as it is revealed through prayer and knowledge is what is given through God manifested through direct experience and revealed through scripture.
@JoesephKatana The reason why Decartes and other who have considered this problem wanted an external definition of the universe and knowledge was so they could argue that the method of science was valid for generating knowledge, if you simply define it as such then this can not be argued and it opens the possibility for any other system to do the same and they then have to be just as equally valid as again there is no external justification.
@CliffStamp And therein is the reason that I consider philosophy (in its modern form) useless: It has set up an erroneous question ("does the universe exist?", unprovable by nature), seeks empirical evidence, then claims that the fundamental principles of science are flawed, all while producing no useful results for humanity.
"does the universe exist?" is just as useless as asking "do all hydrogen atoms have 1 proton?". By definition it does, by nature you can't test anything universally.
@JoesephKatana The philosophy of science is what created natural methodology (science), the application of this method is just that, the application - its development came from philosophy.
The question is not does the universe exist, the question is can you prove the universe exists as we observe it, or are you just defining knowledge to suit that view.
If it is the latter then there is no more validity to your view than theism as noted.
@JoesephKatana Note that the philosophy of science still actively continues to examine the scientific method both directly and indirectly to advance its ability to generate knowledge. Two recent examples are the promotion of falsification by Popper and the idea of paradigm shifts by Kuhn which argue for a consistent bias among scientists (diagnosis and attribute) and how it effects detrimentally the advancement of knowledge.
@JoesephKatana The fact that you consider it useless does not change the fundamental point that you are rejecting theism on the grounds of no empirical evidence but will not hold the exact same criteria to your assertions, that is clearly special pleading. You are demanding of one argument what you are not willing to have be demanded of your own argument.
@CliffStamp Then I drag this conversation back to my previous point, it doesn't matter if "the universe exists as we observe it", what matters is that it behaves consistently and the study of this consistency results in USEFUL CONCLUSIONS. I have no loyalty to the philosophy of science or the scientific method or any use for questions that can't create useful conclusions, I'm loyal to what has given me predictive power over the world around me, whether its real or not.
@JoesephKatana Now you have given a different definition, you are defining knowledge as that which is gained to allow you to make predictions, but consider how to you assign a truth statement to these predictions - again by observation. A theist can make the exact same definition, and just as if an observation gives a contradiction then you can claim improper method of the influence of chance, then a theist can say the same and lack of faith.
@CliffStamp Don't put words in my mouth, I said I'm loyal to the method that supplies predictive power, I didn't say this was the definition of absolute truth. Like I said before, if my observations are actually some massive facade, then it doesn't matter, as long as they behave consistently they are useful as long as the facade is functioning. If the facade has holes in it they can be used to explore outside of the facade, in the case you suggest, a 4 dimensional being.
@JoesephKatana Ok, then how are you defining that they are useful and I assume you are defining it in a way differently than how a theist defines their observations to be useful because again you are rejecting theism because it has no basis for claiming knowledge.
@CliffStamp I say its useful because it offers predictive power. I don't claim that religion is completely useless, I think it makes an excellent way to manipulate people and also makes a great motivator for genocide. But it doesn't supply predictive power, I'm yet to see a religion that doesn't make entirely unsupported predictive claims. I ask for empirical evidence for these claims to validate their bearing on reality (as defined before), if it is supplied, its time to study it.
@JoesephKatana Yes, and what you are doing is asking for knowledge as you have defined it without any support to that definition, there is nothing stopping a theist from asking you to verify your claims with divine proof and either you commit the fallacy of special pleading or you acknowledge that their request is just as valid as yours. And again, how are you verifying predictive power - through observation, again a theist can do the exact same thing.
@CliffStamp Incidentally, that is why my conception of god is an Hegelian 'process theory' one. If you look at it carefully you may infer that this is the same problem that the Trinity concept is designed to solve.
God in this sense is the unity of what is observed and what is observing. Every bit as mind-boggling as Schroedinger as far as I am concerned.
@CliffStamp But you're ignoring the fact that my observations follow a chain of causality that is capable of ending the theists life, whereas their alleged supernatural observations are incapable of so much as being visible to me. Maybe they've got their head in another dimension, I'm more inclined to think its up their ass. And yeah I don't have proof of that, I'm incapable of disproving any facade until I find a hole in it.
@JoesephKatana Your conclusions only hold if you apply your framework to their assertions. There is nothing to stop a theist from applying their framework to your assertions and rejecting them.
And are you really going to assert, without irony, that you will continue to hold a belief simply because it has not been falsified, all while condemning theism for persisting because it has not been demonstrated?
You are clearly using special pleading, and you are ok with that?
@CliffStamp Rejection of something due to lack of evidence is not a case of special pleading. That's the point of this video. Claiming that rejecting religion due to lack of evidence is special pleading is like rejecting bigfoot due to lack of evidence. If we can't reject claims on grounds of lack of evidence, then any old nonsense is equally valid. Again your question amounts to "Prove atheism is accurate and correct", and like user shockofgod you just keep re-asking it.
@JoesephKatana No, however rejection of atheism while accepting of your own framework as it has not been falsified is clearly special pleading.
There is absolutely no reason why a theist can not reverse this logical completely, use their own framework, make you falsify theirs and demand (through their framework) proof of yours.
@JoesephKatana That is just it, they are both equally true in their own frameworks and equally false in the framework of the other.
The difference is that natural methodology is implicit that it does not generate absolute knowledge and proceeds through falsification.
Theism by definition proceeds through demonstration.
That was why for example, a philosopher of science such as Popper would argue that natural methodology is superior, it does not contain the potential fallacy of deduction.
@JoesephKatana However, and this is a bit of an attempt at a friendly jibe, to use Popper's argument to advance the proposition that natural methodology is superior for producing knowledge you have to admit that analytical philosophy of course is useful? As you can claim that your framework allows for falsification however the other framework does not. Of course it is non-trivial to assert falsification is inherently superior to demonstration (it proceeds from knowledge being non-absolute).
@JoesephKatana Theism demonstrates through its own framework, just as natural methodology falsifies through its framework. neither can by definition do anything in the framework of the other.
@CliffStamp But theism comes with this large presupposition that god exists. In an environment that lacks a demonstration that falsifies it, its equally justifiable as believing in anything that isn't demonstrably false. Accordingly they have to either equally belief in god as bigfoot or they're making "special pleading" against the existence of bigfoot (or would that be for the existence of god). In the supposition lies obvious flaw.
@JoesephKatana Theism does not presuppose God exists, it creates a framework for generating knowledge and uses this framework to demonstrate the existence of God. Their framework would reject Bigfoot, that is the fallacy of the Santa Claus argument, which is a horrible serious contention against Theism. Though I do confess using it on occasion simply to examine the response, it fails horribly of course if you tried to use it against an actual theologian.
@CliffStamp Theism may not, but theology does assume or presuppose a god exists. Theism does presuppose the thought of hell and heaven and presumes these notions by assumptions from the bible which is presumed to be the word of a presupposed deity! lol.
@strikenetter Theology is the study of Religion,it is possible to be a theologian and actually reject the concept of God, there are even prominent ones who do, Bart Erhman for example is a Theologian but is an Agnostic due to the dilemma of Suffering.
@CliffStamp Let me clarify at the risk of stating the obvious:
If you believe you are a man you believe you are a man.
If you believe you are not a man you believe that which you must believe if you believe that the statement "I am a man" is false as it applies to you.
If you believe you are a man AND you believe you are a woman you believe that believing you are a woman is not that which you must believe if you believe that the statement "I am a man" is false as it applies to you.
@CliffStamp So if I made up my own "framework" that demonstrated that generated knowledge to demonstrate that bigfoot exists, wouldn't it be equally valid?
@JoesephKatana It would be valid within the framework yes, it is fairly trivial to define a framework, it is non-trivial to assert that the framework is non-trivial (hence the philosophy of science for natural methodology).
@JoesephKatana No, I said any framework can be defined, that is the trivial part, validating a framework as being able to produce knowledge is the significant part.
@CliffStamp So what you are really saying is: 1 I am a man (A) 2 I am a woman (B) 3 ~(A AND ~A) [law of excluded middle] 4 *Assume (If B then ~A) 5 ~A [2,4 Modus Ponens] 6 A AND ~A [1, 5 Conjunction introduction] 7 *Which is absurd 8 Therefore: ~(If B then ~A) Q.E.D. In other words, if you are both a man and a woman then a woman is not what it is for you to be not a man.
@DarkwingScooter What I am saying is that the laws of mathematics (logic included) are defined to exist on particular sets that is all they are, and the classical laws are no more absolute than the logics which reject the classical laws. One example can not affirm or deny that, it would be like saying because an apple is green then all apples are green.
@CliffStamp No, classical (by which I mean zeroth and first order logic) is semantically complete.
If a statement is analytically derivable and true it MUST conform to the laws of classical logic. Saying something contradicts classical logic is LITERALLY saying it is invalid or unsound.
That is a problem for our interpretation of science, but not for logic itself.
This does not mean logical positivism is correct though (because it incorrectly tacks meaning onto validity).
@DarkwingScooter Saying something which contradicts classical logic literally means it is invalid, only in the framework of classical logic - they are not invalid in non-classical logics.
Math is a form of logic (a weaker form than classical logic), not the other way around. The problems of mathematical semantics is precisely the cause of its extending the expressive power of classical logic (maybe 1st order logic is a better term after all).
@CliffStamp "I noted logic it simply a form of math"
Yeah, this is what I mean, that's wrong.
Math is a form of logic (a weaker form than classical logic), not the other way around. The problems of mathematical semantics is precisely the cause of its extending the expressive power of classical logic (maybe 1st order logic is a better term after all).
@CliffStamp "Interpret your argument using non-classical logics which reject the classical law you are using"
There is no such system.
Para-consistent logics don't deny classical logic, they simply re-interpret what negation means (and pay a heavy price for it).
Modal logics are either extensions of logic in the same way as 0th order is an extension of Sheffer stroke logic (which is unfathomable but formally equivalent) and 1st order is of 0th, or are formally incomplete (like math is).
@MyContext And herein lies the mistake: you've made the assumption that I want you to believe what I believe. It's understandable; most Christians are like that... And Atheists, Muslims, Communists, Republicans, Feminists, Packers fans, yoga instructors, etc, etc. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it, and I have no interest in arguing anyone into submission to my beliefs. I don't have a problem with Bertrand; just with his more militant followers.
danielhmanning 1 week ago
I see an argument and an analogy.
Problem of evil argument
Teapot argument
kidasterorig111 1 month ago
@gamesguru Bertrand is pretty easy to refute, actually, because as an atheist, he had prejudices, as all people who hold strong beliefs do. Quick example: when he says there is no reason to believe in God, he's really saying that there is no scientific reason to believe in something that, if it exists, must certainly transcend science. That's like me grading someone's math homework for proper spelling and grammar, rather than for mathematical skill. Russell is a strong mind, but not infallible.
danielhmanning 2 months ago
@danielhmanning I grant one could make up a reason. However, is there a good reason? A reason that has actual support? He is simply pointing out there if there is no justification for the claim what are the merits of making the claim? See my profile regarding the ULINK if you miss the point...
MyContext 1 week ago
@MyContext LOL... If I miss the point? No, I think I got the point just fine, but thanks for your concern.
As far as support goes, what kind are you willing to accept? Even better: if I know for absolute certain that God is real, would you allow me to believe in him without calling me ignorant?
danielhmanning 1 week ago
@danielhmanning I may disagree or find your claim lacking, however, ignorant is off the table given your commentary...:)
What reason do you have that would be reasonable to someone who does NOT already share your position? Since, this is the only criteria that I have for considering whether something is reasonable in general. There have been many positions that I have not agreed with, but I saw the reason in their claims.
MyContext 1 week ago
@MyContext I do understand having beliefs that have no support, however, I do not expect anyone to just agree to them. I still believe that people can be better, however, given the general state of affairs - it really doesn't look like such a notion is reasonable, however, I find working toward such a goal worth the effort.
MyContext 1 week ago
Thanks...well done!
modelleg 3 months ago
Everyone should listen to this guy's work a few times and try to refute him.
gamesguru 3 months ago
What a bright light of rationality. Thanks for posting!
WestonPDX100 4 months ago
Classic
ThreadLed 4 months ago
You deserve a special facebook channel
rafaelwaa 7 months ago
Thanks for this wonderful video !
rafaelwaa 7 months ago
The greatest thinker of his time, and far beyond it, Bertrand Russell is a gift to the ages.
DrNSalmon 7 months ago
Fair enough, in Australia catholic is by far the biggest religion, NZ would be catholic also Asia is buddism so there would be over 2 billion people not accounted for in this map around Asia, really i dunno why i give a fuck, i'm in that so called 2.4% seeing is believing dont believe everything you read, my ancestors where here 50 000 years ago that we know of, & the bible says god created everything when? oil takes how long to create as does coal, ahh yeah enough from me..
dosh228 8 months ago
The map of faiths at 4:30 couldn't be any more wrong
dosh228 8 months ago
@dosh228
Take it up with Encyclopedia Britannica (2003). This is their "Atlas of Faith".
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@dosh228 There is nothing wrong with that map; it is completely accurate.
Task5003 7 months ago
My future husband, Bertrand Russell.
ZigZagBodybag 10 months ago
Well done!! Bertrand Russell seems under-appreciated to me. It amazes me how his name never comes up in this conversation.
ryb19100 1 year ago
This is the most logical follow-up of ideas I've seen in a video, 2nd in relevance and personal awe only to having read them.
Ital21 1 year ago
That was great!
mynameaborat993 1 year ago
CDprof007 1 year ago
This is much better than jackanory.
intermender 1 year ago
CDprof007 1 year ago
Below propositions to be read with adjacent post.
Part II :
Celestial Teapot to be defined in terms of elements in B (b1, b2…) and in C (c1, c2,..)
Propositions:
1. F1 (A)=C
2. F2(B)=D
3. F2 (AUB)=D
4. F2(CUD) found b1, b2.., c1, c2..
CDprof007 1 year ago
China Teapot B= min (0.001, 0.0001, 0.0001,...) of a Neuron
=(0.9999...-1) of a Neuron
CDprof007 1 year ago
at the time of my viewing about 2/10ths of 1% of the voters are seemingly as theistic as they are anti-intellectual ;)
Hardryv 1 year ago
Hurray! NASA just found Kepler-10b. Why can't there be a China Teapot?
CDprof007 1 year ago
Science and religion they go parallel?
sil3ntmode 1 year ago
Great stuff!
Wintershade3001 1 year ago
Amazing!
tommytalks77 1 year ago
Bertrand Russel is one of my favorite philosophers, I've read a few of his other essays and his writing style for me is a bit difficult to keep up with, but great stuff nonetheless.
SDub817 1 year ago
HA!!! I was JUST realizing that Ayn Rand and Bertrand Russell were popular at the same time and was JUST on google looking it up. I then decide I don't care and look at youtube to find good old C0nc0rdance made a video about Bertrand. =) it was pretty cool.
Dracanic 1 year ago
Agreed, the video response is the china teapot! =)
ilovejessicachan 1 year ago
@ilovejessicachan Thanks for picking up the a telescope!
CDprof007 1 year ago
Good read.
zecnobot 1 year ago
Russell was the second skeptic I read; Sagan the first. I liked him more than other philosophers, because I actually understood what he said - or at least thought I did.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Thank you for this wonderful reading.
laraesque 1 year ago
Very cool. I really like these narrations of excerpted essays.
blindside55 1 year ago
another great video. i love the final quote. it's kinda scary and also kinda exciting and liberating.
CanyoneroTimbo 1 year ago
Below "telescope" needed to view the China Teapot:
1. The video response contains tea, and water...lots of it.
2. It exists on the internet 24 hrs, thus exists "between the earth and the Mars".
3. It exists on the internet through out the year, thus exists around the sun,
4. It is "affirmed in ancient books."
5. It has "instilled into the minds of children at school".
Q.E.D. China Teapot is NOT a reductio ad absurdum!
CDprof007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "I noted logic it simply a form of math"
Yeah, this is what I mean, that's wrong.
Math is a form of logic (a weaker form than classical logic), not the other way around.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "I noted logic it simply a form of math"
Yeah, this is what I mean, that's wrong.
Math is a form of logic (a weaker form than classical logic), not the other way around.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance can you put up a nice high-res "teach the controversy" teapot desktop for our downloading pleasure? please and thank you!
farawaythings 1 year ago
curses. controversy. wearscience. com/design/teapot/
farawaythings 1 year ago
For example, if we create a species of creature capable of understanding morality, teach them that killing members of their species is immoral, and then we go and kill members of their species, we would be bound by their inevitable decision that we were acting immorally, since they were our own rules.
Avicaris 1 year ago
I've answered this twice already: if WE are the ones teaching them what is moral and immoral, then YES, we ARE bound by their decision if we commit acts on them that we told them were immoral, or else we would be hypocritical.
Avicaris 1 year ago
No need to apologise, c0nc0rdance. Any video about the sorely-missed Bertrand Russell equals instant - and definitive - win.
KeplersDream 1 year ago
Hail Bertie!
nontheistdavid 1 year ago
In addition, if we teach them a system of morality, then use a different system ourselves when interacting, or more importantly, when judging what they do, we'd be hypocrites, and not worthy of judging them, period.
Avicaris 1 year ago
As I said, if we teach them which actions are moral, and which are immoral, and then subject them to immoral treatment, they jave every right to judge us by the criteria we taught them, especially if we profess to have a higher level of morality.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris And again, there is no question as to can the animals judge us as immoral, the question is are we as the creators bound by the morality of what we create. If an animal judges you as immoral do you accept that moral judgment?
Or as an alternate and even more extreme position, what if we create something which comes to a behavior which is inherently amoral, it does not recognize right or wrong as valid concepts, are we then bound to accept that behavior as well.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
i cant follow :)
american0708german 1 year ago
Good choice of essay :)
selvmordspilot 1 year ago
@SuperWorldwide23 What empirical evidence do you observe which supports the existence of God?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
I want a t-shirt with that Teach The Controversy illustration (3:20). I couldn't stop laughing at that.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@SuperWorldwide23 There is no energy in the universe, while this seems irrational, all the negative and positive energy when measured exactly balance out. Our current understanding is that at one point in the distant past there was no separation and thus no energy, positive or negative, anywhere.
Now as to why physics is as it is and not some other way, how come gravity is not attractive for example, or why isn't the speed of light equal to the speed of sound - we do not know at this time.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
Gramos, you should probably stop trying to use Ray Comfort's flawed "reasoning"(and I can't stress enough how loosely I use that term) around people who know how big of a fallacy it is.
Avicaris 1 year ago
If we create beings capable of understanding morality, then teach it what actions constitute being moral or immoral, and command them to judge each other by what we've taght them, then commit acts upon them that we've said are immoral by our standards, yes they have absolutely every right to judge us.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris Note, there is no contention that the animals we create do not have the right to have a morality, the question is are we as the creators bound to that morality?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What will happen to you when you die? Have you ever told lies, stolen, used God's name in vain? If yes, then you are a liar, theif, and a blasphemer. When you die & stand before God you'll be guilty of breaking His law. The bible says you'll end up in Hell! But God sent God his Son Jesus to die on a cross for your sins, & He rose from the dead on the third day. If you'll believe the Gospel(Jesus died for your sins & was resurrected) for the forgiveness of your sins, you'll have eternal life!
gramosjr7 1 year ago
@SuperWorldwide23
Great. This is called religious dogma.
There is one simple answer to dogma: Prove it. Show me objectively that your god has these properties and I will concede my position.
For my own part, I assert that there is a SuperGod that created and rules your god. Your god is the property of SuperGod, and there are no properties of your god that SuperGod did not grant to her.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance If you are performing numerical analysis and testing the hypothesis of correlation between A and B against the null hypothesis (any and all ways that the observables could exist without a correlation, just through random chance) - does it make any sense for me to ask you to test against the super null hypothesis which is the null hypothesis -plus- other all other random ways that the observables could manifest in the pattern noted without an actual correlation?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@SuperWorldwide23 "Obviously it is not about the evidence." Assuming the existence of a god who can willingly blind some people to reality (or interfere in any other way), all evidence is in question. We can't "know" that one car has a higher maximum speed, it might just be god giving it a boost, or skewing the perspective of all of the on lookers. Even if everything you say is completely true, you are insane and stupid if you expect someone to believe it, knowing full and well they can't.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Yes, Sir, evidence can be subjectively interpreted and blind to someone. If you don't understand that, you are denying the existence of arts. Are we living in a world guided only by formulae?
CDprof007 1 year ago
@CDprof007 I can see the art work and have the artistic qualities explained to me, art is a matter of opinion and taste, that's a far cry from all of the evidence of god in the entire universe being completely invisible to me but completely visible to someone else. Its even further from saying that some invisible being is intentionally blinding me to the existence of that evidence. Surely you see the difference.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Let's be more focused, Is art an evidence? I would argue that it is. Otherwise, the whole discipline of archaeology has to go down the drain.
CDprof007 1 year ago
@CDprof007 Evidence of what? How is archaeology an art? Just because you're unearthing art, that doesn't make it art. I don't buy the creation equals creator argument, which is apparently what you're getting at. We know what sort of beings produce artifacts, which is why we put so much work into unearthing them. If there was a larger creative entity that had the option of placing false evidence, that would throw would put archeology in question.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana That is an interesting point, yes if there was a God then he could magically make anything happen, but that is always the case when you are testing any scientific hypothesis - there are always unknowns that can effect the system in various ways, the scientific method is so designed to categorize them. This would only be a problem (for science) if God existed and deliberately manifested in chaotic laws of nature, i.e., God was a Cthulhu type being.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Oh sort of like when the god of the bible manifests itself through floods and plagues? Sort of like how young earth creationists are convinced he fabricated the fossil record and the rest of the universe in its present state to deceive people? Sort of like how every god in history has popped up in a gap of knowledge where things are apparently chaotic and not understandable? Sort of like how your god has retreated to the uncertain origins and the depths of the human mind?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana While there are young earth creationists who do advocate fairly extreme positions, they can not be used to characterize the argument in summary. That would be like concluding that Hitler represents the manifestation of science (he argued for selection). There are always nuts to put it kindly in any widespread propositional argument, if you want to understand the paradigm of suffering then see the works of Hicks and Leibnitz.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana However I do not see how you could argue that the act of the flood was an act of chaos when it was a deliberate and known manifestation. Your original problem was that if there was a God then it could manifest constantly in creating a chaotic universe where the order of nature was non-existent (you specifically noted that Newton's laws would not be valid). I do not see where you see God behaving like that in a deceptive manner in the Bible.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Can you name a single story in the bible where god isn't deceptive? Do you think he warned the entire earth before noahs flood? Did he tell adam and eve they'd be the founders of humanity if they ate the fruit, instead of telling them they'd die? How about the tower of babel? or the whole creation thing, where he apparently leaves evidence contrary to his existence.
Even if this is non literal, then he allowed his book to be deceptive.
Oh, and that whole invisibility thing...
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The flood is a purge, the tenants were made clear before the flood they were not followed hence the flood, that was not deception. It would be deception if people were killed in the flood who followed the commandments. Adam and Eve would not have understood that they would be the founders of humanity before eating the fruit, simply because there are problems interpreting scripture does not mean scripture is deceptive.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana You may first want to define deceptive because you appear to be using it in a non-straightforward manner. If I teach a class and at the end of it the students are arguing over what was presented and how to interpret it, does that imply that I was being deceptive? Do you really think that anytime you are not 100% clear on what someone is telling you that they are being deceptive in their presentation?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp If you teach a class and there is disagreement of what you taught, it definitely implies you aren't an omnipotent perfect teacher. If you teach a class and tell one or two of your students to bring scuba gear the next day, because you intend to flood the classroom and kill them all, then yes, you are definitely deceptive and extraordinarily evil.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Ok, how does it logically follow that if students disagree on the interpretation of information presented that there was a lack of ability on the part of the teacher, knowing of course that the students have free will and individual conscious and unique reasoning.
Are you really asserting that the classroom flood is analogous to the Biblical flood? And are you stating that all punishment is inherently deceptive and evil?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I'm implying that killing everyone with drowning while only warning a few is deceptive. Even death row inmates know how and why we intend to kill them. Are you implying that everyone on earth, including the young children, knew gods laws and chose to disobey them, therefore deserving an unexpected cruel death? I mean, if everyone on earth was aware of gods will, he should have left it alone, now the worlds less then 1/3 christian. What poor management your god has.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The commandments were made clear as was the punishment for the commandments right from Adam.
Where in the Bible does it say that both the innocent that were on the earth perished in the flood and second that they went to hell.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The Bible does have God manifesting itself in non-natural ways (water into wine) but it is a known manifestation. It is not like God show up at a water treatment facility and turns water into wine for the lols sending the experimentalists into a frenzy and then repeats this pattern at random intervals for its own amusement.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Ironically, it is only through the definition of God as an absolute and eternal, can it be stated with certainty that the universe and its nature are also absolute. Without this assertion there is no requirement that gravity does not suddenly invert and become repulsive for example. If you would state with certainty that the nature of the universe does exist as an absolute then from what does this constraint originate?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Lets say that you had absolute proof that your god made the laws of physics, you still have all your work ahead of you proving that he must be the christian version of god. On top of that, you have massive loads of work to do if you want to convince me that such a being is worthy of worship or adoration.
If you want to know about the laws of physics and the nature of matter, you should read up on it, it has little bearing on this argument.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Yes the argument is non-trivial to move from deism to theism to a particular theism, that is why there is such a volume of work on the subject, no one argues this entire argument can be reduced a comment box.
My assertion was relating to you comment that God implied a chaotic universe as if anything without an external constraint, the universe can not be held as absolute, if you think it can from natural methodology itself I would be curious to see the argument.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp If you want to know about the natural laws and their origins, its an interesting and in depth field of physics. Claiming that the existence of natural laws implies god is just as lame as implying that the existence of the universe implies god, except with the added stipulation that your god created the laws with the intention of regularly violating them to emphasize a point, because clearly millions of gallons of water is a more effective communication method then speech.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana I did not claim the existence of natural laws implies a God, I noted that without an external constraint then the nature laws can not be asserted to be absolute.
Again, if you think you can make this assertion through natural methodology then I would be curious to hear the argument.
The Christian God did speak to the people through previous prophets, however they exercised free will and ignored it.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "External constraint" The system operates itself through forces and energy and all the other physical concepts I've invited you to read more about. Are you implying that forces and energy are impossible without something outside of the universe guiding it? If you want to follow tradition and put a big supernatural stamp on the unknown, go for it. But know that the supernatural has never usefully explained anything, and that its still far far away from the christian god.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana No, I have asked, if you are asserting that the universe is absolute without a God as you seemed to imply when you stated that God would render nature as Chaotic, by what means can you argue though natural methodology that nature both has absolute characteristics and the properties of said characteristics. I have asked you several times for references to "read more about it", you still have not provided any, by all means do so.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Do you really expect me to spoon feed you every piece of knowledge? These things are widely available, but if you insist on feigning the inability to find it, I offer you the wikipedia article on the Big_Bang as a starting point for your research. I gave up trying to educate people on such things when I had a creationist tell me that "god made it that way to test our faith" after twelve pages of private messages explaining evolution.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana I did not ask you to spoon feed anything, I asked for specific peer reviewed published articles, you could not seriously be contending that Wikipedia is such.
However, I would be interested where in that article you think that your assertions are held and what empirical evidence you think it provides.
A more appropriate place for the absolute nature of the universe is not the big bang theory, but the anthropomorphic principle which deals with the constraint.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Oh and when I say regularly violating the natural laws, I mean only in the presence of a particularly backwards and superstitious group of people, not to appear before clearly them and give amazing advancements that would make them a shining example of mankind, but to reinforce the values and superstitions that they already held. Strangely no one was independently recording these events, but to be fair they may have been caught up in one of many god ordered genocides in the bible.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Are you really making the assertion that all Christians are backwards and superstitious? You are aware that many prominent current scientists are Christians, even those such as Ken Miller who defends the theory of evolution - while being a devout Christian at the same time. Where is your empirical evidence, published in peer reviewed journals (psychology, neuroscience, etc.) that atheists are more advanced and rational than religious people?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No I'm saying that the miracles suddenly disappear when there's no superstitious people around. And even perfectly rational people can be duped using psychologically studied and documented techniques to indoctrinate them to believe totally irrational things.
Just seeing some of the insane and contradicting beliefs that intelligent people can hold should be all the reason you need to discard a contradictory book written thousands of years ago that disagrees with the rest of history.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana So again, are you asserting that religion is nothing more than a superstition and do you have any empirical evidence to support this conclusion based on peer reviewed papers in the literature. Or are you simply asserting a personal belief, which is reached without empirical evidence as fact. Surely you are not claiming the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? That problem of deduction has been challenged in the philosophy of science directly (Popper et al.).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp So what if I am? Why do you suddenly have such an issue with personal beliefs?
Seriously though, you're the one presenting the claim without evidence, that the world was flooded and god isn't deceptive as portrayed in the bible, and that his existence is clear in the world, and you have the nerve to ask me for empirical evidence? You too think that religion is nothing more then superstition, except of course for Christianity. Wheres your evidence for dismissing the others?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana If all you have is a personal belief then how can you possibly demand empirical evidence of anyone else, you are now committing a clear case of special pleading.
Where did I claim there was empirical evidence for the flood, existence of god, and assert that Religion is superstition?
I did contend that God as described in the Bible was not deceptive using simply the definition of deceptive and scripture itself.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp So where is your evidence for the personal belief you hold that hindism isn't the one true religion? What about Zeus, wheres your evidence to prove him wrong? What about the gigantic invisible ogre who occasionally reorganizes your furniture but alters your mind to not notice it? I notice a profound lack of empirical evidence on your part to deny all of these belief systems.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana We were discussing a statement you made, surely you would not contend that the flaws in your argument are justified if the same flaws would be present in mine, nor that it is a justified consideration in a discussion that when an issue is raised that it be ignored and instead a content be made in the opposing argument. Do you think that is how science conducts itself?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp What statement?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Where did I assert that you could not hold a belief without empirical evidence, or that lack of empirical evidence was indication that an assertion was false? You were the one making such demands and when it was asked if you had any for the many and numerous assertions you made you admitted that they were all beliefs without empirical evidence. That is clearly special pleading.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Are you asserting that the big bang theory argues that the universe is constrained to be as it is, that the nature of the physical laws are constrained as absolutes? The big bang theory does not even deal with the conditions of the early universe as we still have not unified quantum theory and relativity so can not probe into the plankt epoch so how could the nature even be known let alone constrained as an absolute.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana You have made assertions which are both extreme in nature characterizing other people are superstitious, easily deceived and mislead simply because they are religious.
You have no empirical proof of any of this, you can cite no literature to support this diagnosis, yet you attack the nature of those who have theistic faith without empirical proof?
Does this seem to you as a consistent approach?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Who is the one making extreme assertions here? You're the one who believes in an invisible god who escapes detection! You're the one who insists that its true! I assert nothing but the simple fact that it is not true, I dismiss it with every bit of certainty that I dismiss every single other religion that has failed to provide any evidence.
I didn't say it was a matter of faith on my part, I said if it were why would you have a problem with it? Thought you liked faith...
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana You have made many assertions, among them that religion is a superstition, that the universe is constrained absolutely, that religious people are easily deceived, you have noted that scripture is inconsistent, that the definition of God is contradictory, etc. . You are the one attacking a position for lack of empirical evidence, at not one point did I make any such contention.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp My position is one of rejecting your position on the grounds of lack of evidence. If you have a problem with rejecting claims without evidence, are you able supply evidence that any of the various myths you don't believe are untrue? I'm in the same position, I just throw one more absurdity in the bin. I said IF it was a belief on my part, why would you have a problem with it, being a person of faith and all. I just reject your position on the grounds of no evidence
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Now your position has changed completely, you went from making a diagnosis about behavior and categorizing scripture and religious as being logically inconsistent to simply refusing to make any assertions at all, denying past posts and now sitting back and simply asking for empirical evidence. Now if you want to reject an assertion based on the fact there is no empirical evidence that is a completely different line of argument but we can start over from there easily.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana If your position is simply that you reject theism as there is no empirical evidence then I would ask do you reject the existence of the universe. if you do not then what is your empirical evidence that the universe exists, and further that it exists as we experience it - and note your evidence here has to be both demonstrable and falsifiable, and of course peer reviewed and published.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp lolwut?
Rejecting the existence of the universe is as silly as rejecting the existence of the mind, its an emergent property of parts that can be individually affirmed or rejected. What does that have to do with arguing for god?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Again, I never asked you if you rejected the existence of the universe, I asked you what is your empirical evidence for its existence. You have already noted that you reject Religion as there is no empirical evidence and thus extending your argument that logically follows.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The assertion of the existence of the universe is nontrivial and the subject of considerable study by both philosophers of science and scientists themselves who founded natural methodology (science). The very first issue they had to deal with was the assertion that science actually provided knowledge as they did not want to just hold this as a predicate but actually prove this was true, they could not - if you can't by your own logic you have to reject it.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp And like I said, its as absurd as trying to disprove your mind when you are unable to reside outside of it. One is incapable of making observations without a mind just as one is incapable of making observations if there is no universe. However, the minds components can be observed and tested individually without destroying the entire system, just as the universe can be evaluated as the sum of its parts.
Why would anyone see this as a reason to give up and declare it supernatural?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Again, no one has made an assertion that because the universe can not be proven empirically to exist that it is empirical proof of God.
However you have rejected the concept of God because there is no empirical evidence, yet now you hold that you accept the concept of an actualized universe with no empirical evidence.
This then shows that it is not empirical evidence that you are using as your standard of reason but something else, so what is that something else?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana This problem of proof of existence as noted is well known and studied in the history of the philosophy of science and in science itself, are you really now declaring all of those people such as Decartes who founded natural methodology as absurd? Is this another personal and original belief you hold or can this proposition be found in any critical reviews of his works? Not that there is anything wrong with unique criticism, just curious if that is the nature of the statement.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp
"we couldn't be around to observe"
I'm not sure how I messed that up twice.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The fact that natural methodology is advocated as a system to generate knowledge and that it can not affirm or deny (demonstrate or falsify) the actual foundational tenants is to you really both not a problem at all, and even more than that to even raise the concern and question the foundational tenants is absurd? And, at the same time you see no parallel at all between that reasoning and theism?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I'm unfamiliar with this idea, it sounds absurd, ill founded and useless. It starts with a word that has been assigned to an idea (always a bad start) namely the existence of everything, which by definition can not be disproved because we be around to observe it if it didn't. Its just as absurd as saying you can't prove the forest exists while you're in the forest, because you haven't observed a non-forest.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@CliffStamp We've created the very definition we are trying to disprove, which is trees and the space between them, both of which we can test for and both of which imply the existence of the forest we are in. Just as I would define the universe as being matter, energy and the empty space between, I can verify the existence of these and therefore ascertain that what I'm in fits the definition I've imposed on myself. Not that it matters, because we can define the universe as being what we are in
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Would you really define the universe as that which we experience because that is not how science defines it. Consider the fact that at one point we (humanity) did not have the ability to observe the universe as we do now (if you accept evolution). Does that mean the universe did not exist at that point of time? Note as well your definition is problematic because it would be similar to for example if I defined Bigfoot to be what people experience as Bigfoot.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I was pointing out the flaws of defining it, sorry if that wasn't obvious for you.
So what if there's over nine thousand dimensions? If they can interact with our reality, they can be measured and observed. If they can't, they might as well be totally adjunct and for all practical purposes do not exist.
It doesn't matter if what we experience is what exists, what matters is that it behaves in a consistent way.
Do you have some round about way to link this to theism?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The central argument is that you reject theism because it is a position without empirical evidence, again, the foundational assertions of science are themselves without empirical evidence and thus you, by your own argument, have to reject the existence of the universe unless you can actually, at a minimum, define an experiment which can demonstrate and/or falsify it.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Note that if you simply define the universe to be what we observe and knowledge to be what we infer from the scientific method, then you have no external framework for the truth of your assertions, they are inherent definitions.
Theism could easily counter this with the universe is as it is revealed through prayer and knowledge is what is given through God manifested through direct experience and revealed through scripture.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The reason why Decartes and other who have considered this problem wanted an external definition of the universe and knowledge was so they could argue that the method of science was valid for generating knowledge, if you simply define it as such then this can not be argued and it opens the possibility for any other system to do the same and they then have to be just as equally valid as again there is no external justification.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp And therein is the reason that I consider philosophy (in its modern form) useless: It has set up an erroneous question ("does the universe exist?", unprovable by nature), seeks empirical evidence, then claims that the fundamental principles of science are flawed, all while producing no useful results for humanity.
"does the universe exist?" is just as useless as asking "do all hydrogen atoms have 1 proton?". By definition it does, by nature you can't test anything universally.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The philosophy of science is what created natural methodology (science), the application of this method is just that, the application - its development came from philosophy.
The question is not does the universe exist, the question is can you prove the universe exists as we observe it, or are you just defining knowledge to suit that view.
If it is the latter then there is no more validity to your view than theism as noted.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Note that the philosophy of science still actively continues to examine the scientific method both directly and indirectly to advance its ability to generate knowledge. Two recent examples are the promotion of falsification by Popper and the idea of paradigm shifts by Kuhn which argue for a consistent bias among scientists (diagnosis and attribute) and how it effects detrimentally the advancement of knowledge.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana The fact that you consider it useless does not change the fundamental point that you are rejecting theism on the grounds of no empirical evidence but will not hold the exact same criteria to your assertions, that is clearly special pleading. You are demanding of one argument what you are not willing to have be demanded of your own argument.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Then I drag this conversation back to my previous point, it doesn't matter if "the universe exists as we observe it", what matters is that it behaves consistently and the study of this consistency results in USEFUL CONCLUSIONS. I have no loyalty to the philosophy of science or the scientific method or any use for questions that can't create useful conclusions, I'm loyal to what has given me predictive power over the world around me, whether its real or not.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Now you have given a different definition, you are defining knowledge as that which is gained to allow you to make predictions, but consider how to you assign a truth statement to these predictions - again by observation. A theist can make the exact same definition, and just as if an observation gives a contradiction then you can claim improper method of the influence of chance, then a theist can say the same and lack of faith.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Don't put words in my mouth, I said I'm loyal to the method that supplies predictive power, I didn't say this was the definition of absolute truth. Like I said before, if my observations are actually some massive facade, then it doesn't matter, as long as they behave consistently they are useful as long as the facade is functioning. If the facade has holes in it they can be used to explore outside of the facade, in the case you suggest, a 4 dimensional being.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Ok, then how are you defining that they are useful and I assume you are defining it in a way differently than how a theist defines their observations to be useful because again you are rejecting theism because it has no basis for claiming knowledge.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp I say its useful because it offers predictive power. I don't claim that religion is completely useless, I think it makes an excellent way to manipulate people and also makes a great motivator for genocide. But it doesn't supply predictive power, I'm yet to see a religion that doesn't make entirely unsupported predictive claims. I ask for empirical evidence for these claims to validate their bearing on reality (as defined before), if it is supplied, its time to study it.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Yes, and what you are doing is asking for knowledge as you have defined it without any support to that definition, there is nothing stopping a theist from asking you to verify your claims with divine proof and either you commit the fallacy of special pleading or you acknowledge that their request is just as valid as yours. And again, how are you verifying predictive power - through observation, again a theist can do the exact same thing.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Incidentally, that is why my conception of god is an Hegelian 'process theory' one. If you look at it carefully you may infer that this is the same problem that the Trinity concept is designed to solve.
God in this sense is the unity of what is observed and what is observing. Every bit as mind-boggling as Schroedinger as far as I am concerned.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@CliffStamp But you're ignoring the fact that my observations follow a chain of causality that is capable of ending the theists life, whereas their alleged supernatural observations are incapable of so much as being visible to me. Maybe they've got their head in another dimension, I'm more inclined to think its up their ass. And yeah I don't have proof of that, I'm incapable of disproving any facade until I find a hole in it.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Your conclusions only hold if you apply your framework to their assertions. There is nothing to stop a theist from applying their framework to your assertions and rejecting them.
And are you really going to assert, without irony, that you will continue to hold a belief simply because it has not been falsified, all while condemning theism for persisting because it has not been demonstrated?
You are clearly using special pleading, and you are ok with that?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Rejection of something due to lack of evidence is not a case of special pleading. That's the point of this video. Claiming that rejecting religion due to lack of evidence is special pleading is like rejecting bigfoot due to lack of evidence. If we can't reject claims on grounds of lack of evidence, then any old nonsense is equally valid. Again your question amounts to "Prove atheism is accurate and correct", and like user shockofgod you just keep re-asking it.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana No, however rejection of atheism while accepting of your own framework as it has not been falsified is clearly special pleading.
There is absolutely no reason why a theist can not reverse this logical completely, use their own framework, make you falsify theirs and demand (through their framework) proof of yours.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp So how is disbelief in a large facade any different then disbelief in god?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana That is just it, they are both equally true in their own frameworks and equally false in the framework of the other.
The difference is that natural methodology is implicit that it does not generate absolute knowledge and proceeds through falsification.
Theism by definition proceeds through demonstration.
That was why for example, a philosopher of science such as Popper would argue that natural methodology is superior, it does not contain the potential fallacy of deduction.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana However, and this is a bit of an attempt at a friendly jibe, to use Popper's argument to advance the proposition that natural methodology is superior for producing knowledge you have to admit that analytical philosophy of course is useful? As you can claim that your framework allows for falsification however the other framework does not. Of course it is non-trivial to assert falsification is inherently superior to demonstration (it proceeds from knowledge being non-absolute).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Demonstration? Is it somewhere implied that theism has ever demonstrated anything? Or are you saying that it hasn't proceeded at all?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Theism demonstrates through its own framework, just as natural methodology falsifies through its framework. neither can by definition do anything in the framework of the other.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp But theism comes with this large presupposition that god exists. In an environment that lacks a demonstration that falsifies it, its equally justifiable as believing in anything that isn't demonstrably false. Accordingly they have to either equally belief in god as bigfoot or they're making "special pleading" against the existence of bigfoot (or would that be for the existence of god). In the supposition lies obvious flaw.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Theism does not presuppose God exists, it creates a framework for generating knowledge and uses this framework to demonstrate the existence of God. Their framework would reject Bigfoot, that is the fallacy of the Santa Claus argument, which is a horrible serious contention against Theism. Though I do confess using it on occasion simply to examine the response, it fails horribly of course if you tried to use it against an actual theologian.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Theism may not, but theology does assume or presuppose a god exists. Theism does presuppose the thought of hell and heaven and presumes these notions by assumptions from the bible which is presumed to be the word of a presupposed deity! lol.
strikenetter 1 year ago
@strikenetter Theology is the study of Religion,it is possible to be a theologian and actually reject the concept of God, there are even prominent ones who do, Bart Erhman for example is a Theologian but is an Agnostic due to the dilemma of Suffering.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Let me clarify at the risk of stating the obvious:
If you believe you are a man you believe you are a man.
If you believe you are not a man you believe that which you must believe if you believe that the statement "I am a man" is false as it applies to you.
If you believe you are a man AND you believe you are a woman you believe that believing you are a woman is not that which you must believe if you believe that the statement "I am a man" is false as it applies to you.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@CliffStamp So if I made up my own "framework" that demonstrated that generated knowledge to demonstrate that bigfoot exists, wouldn't it be equally valid?
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana It would be valid within the framework yes, it is fairly trivial to define a framework, it is non-trivial to assert that the framework is non-trivial (hence the philosophy of science for natural methodology).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp So you were knowingly defending a trivial framework all along? I want my time back.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana No, I said any framework can be defined, that is the trivial part, validating a framework as being able to produce knowledge is the significant part.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter What I am saying is that the laws of mathematics (logic included) are defined to exist on particular sets that is all they are, and the classical laws are no more absolute than the logics which reject the classical laws. One example can not affirm or deny that, it would be like saying because an apple is green then all apples are green.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp No, classical (by which I mean zeroth and first order logic) is semantically complete.
If a statement is analytically derivable and true it MUST conform to the laws of classical logic. Saying something contradicts classical logic is LITERALLY saying it is invalid or unsound.
That is a problem for our interpretation of science, but not for logic itself.
This does not mean logical positivism is correct though (because it incorrectly tacks meaning onto validity).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Saying something which contradicts classical logic literally means it is invalid, only in the framework of classical logic - they are not invalid in non-classical logics.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "only in the framework of classical logic"
No. In any framework.
Do you believe (A)?
Then you believe (A) right?
Then you believe what is is to believe (A).
Then you don't believe what it is to not believe (A)
Then you believe that (A) or some other statement is true (i.e. if nothing else A is still true).
That is not some property of something. It is what it to believe A. From there follows all classical logic (Scheffer stroke).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Interpret your argument using non-classical logics which reject the classical law you are using.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp @CliffStamp "I noted logic it simply a form of math"
Yeah, this is what I mean, that's wrong.
Math is a form of logic (a weaker form than classical logic), not the other way around. The problems of mathematical semantics is precisely the cause of its extending the expressive power of classical logic (maybe 1st order logic is a better term after all).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "I noted logic it simply a form of math"
Yeah, this is what I mean, that's wrong.
Math is a form of logic (a weaker form than classical logic), not the other way around. The problems of mathematical semantics is precisely the cause of its extending the expressive power of classical logic (maybe 1st order logic is a better term after all).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Interpret your argument using non-classical logics which reject the classical law you are using"
There is no such system.
Para-consistent logics don't deny classical logic, they simply re-interpret what negation means (and pay a heavy price for it).
Modal logics are either extensions of logic in the same way as 0th order is an extension of Sheffer stroke logic (which is unfathomable but formally equivalent) and 1st order is of 0th, or are formally incomplete (like math is).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter There is no system of logic which rejects the classical laws?
CliffStamp 1 year ago