Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
If our genes made us breed like rabbits, it would actually be our demise. We're already overpopulating the world. If we were to all have 10 children, the problem would rise exponentially until wars over resources would rage all over the world. We're so smart now that we can actually have some control over our own evolution. and I think that's a good thing for the most part.
LoL!!! That teacher said that teaching kids to think for themselves is still considered by some to be "indoctrination". That got me laughing because the people that think that know one thing...if you teach kids to think critically and think for themselves then then will ultimately realize what bullshit religion is and then they will then become Atheist...I would consider that indirect indoctrination. The effect is unintentional and the means is absolutely moral. I love it.
Maybe catching back up. We weren't doing too badly at the start, then there was a sort of national 'dark ages' that we are trying to pull our selves out of
I think you have fecal matter where your brain should be. I've lived in 6 countries around the world, some poor and some rich, and after being exposed to so many different types of people I know that each person should be judged as an individual by the content of his character and his actions...not by the government of the country in which they live. You are narrow-minded and your refusal to acknowledge that is proof that you are also in denial.
When you say "United states of moron-land" you are clearly insulting the good people of the United States. To say that the United States has a "backward nature" is just stupidity when the greatest minds in history came here and created a system of law and order with a representative government that over the centuries attracted more of the greatest minds of every generation from all over the world to produce the most powerful and advanced nation in the world. In your ignorance you live in bliss.
Then I'm royally fucked. Who wants a delusional GF. Sure, there maybe be some more "Oh my God" screaming in the bed, but the girl could try to drag you to church.
I think the contrary. Leaving the vast amount of natural and civilized resources of America in the hands of the religious would be a terrible and frightening idea.
Well I am scared as fuck to admit im an atheist where I live...Believing in god without religion is not good enough here. You have to believe in god and share their personal religion in order to be respected. It was bad enough when I was just a theist and they hated me, that made me become agnostic then atheist.
Incredible how he can give a meaningful and coherent answer to that last question. I had never thought about that question but an incredibly intelligent answer.
Considering that religion started out thinking the world was flat (and a great deal of other things) I sadly doubt the discoveries of CERN will put a dent in peoples delusions.
here in the us, we don't have time to waste. we need to have instant food, instant gratification...
we don't mean to be impolite; it's just our socialization. don't take your panties off over our ways of doing things.
we & millions around the world have corollary views about bloody brit silliness (stiff upper lip, clewless arrogance, etc.), too; not warm or likable traits, but such are your norms and socialization. we don't take our panties off over such brit nonsense, either.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why do people think that priests are out to sabotage and subvert scientists and/or that scientists are out to subvert religious leaders? The truth is science and faith are not mutually exclusive and that issues within each of these fields are unrelated, and dont give me bull about stem cell research because that is a moral, not a religious call. We need to realize that learning science we are trusting that what is contained in the textbook is true but we also must realize the bible is not fact
xtianity has always attempted to subvert and hinder science. From Galileo to the HPV vaccine (or stem cell research), religious morons have always attempted to stop the human progression of real knowledge. Instead they want to pound the square peg of their theology into the round hole that is reality and cling to their bronze-age, goat-herder fairy tales.
i suggest you read dawkins book "the god delusion." he writes very persuasively against the "non-overlapping magesteria" argument. a universe with a god would be very different than one without, especially if it's a god that regularly intervenes in human affairs in the form of miracles or answering prayers. we would be able to measure this intervention scientifically. studies have been performed to look for the efficacy of prayer, and have all been either poorly conducted or inconclusive.
Religion is not some vengeful abrahamic god's word, it's scary mythology, written by men, translated by wolves, followed by sheep!
I'm comfortable joining with any (including religious believer) in safeguarding secular humanistic ethical standards. But divine attribution is a child-like delusion.
Actualy, it is said in Steven 12:45 - God hadeth made not a voice of difference, but ears to hear sounds differently. Thus let women be heard as weak inferior creatures.(Joke. What is sad is that some people may think I'm serious.)
Can you yell out QFT at these kind of things? Is he simply talking about whether science can satisfy people's need to answer philosophical questions?
I personally don't think that's science's job - science should and always has been devise the theory, get the evidence, rigorously test it, and accumulate a knowledge base of truth. But he answered that - there isn't meaning to be found in every single process.
I think since we have reached a point where we have so much knowledge to pass on, a lot of the info has to be just accepted by the next generation, this might leave them open to accepting faulty knowledge. It is impossible for one to test all the knowledge we've acquired, and a good deal just has to be accepted. This leaves an opening for faulty knowledge to trickle in with what has to be accepted.
Yes, I thought of that, but an individual can't actually test all the knowledge, and just has to accept some experiments as being legitimate. And the documented evidence might be interpreted in such a way as to use it to 'prove' something else. This was just a idea that popped into my head that seemed a possible reason for continued superstition.
I would be happy if we could at least pass on the basics to the next gen, like the real age of the Earth, gravity, evolution etc, FACTS. Just these basics will utterly destroy the supernatural if applied. And of course that blind faith is NOT a virtue.
I disagree, faulty knowledge is always discovered, as it does not yield consistent results. We can not test all previous scientific discoveries directly, but the consistency of data gained by principles that rely on other, older principles offers some validation of the previous discoveries.
i agree, "accept doctrines uncritically" applies to the scientific community as well as some religious ones. My nation of of people include anyone who has studied Transcendental argumentation for the existence of God. It might not be popular, but it is an answer to why postulates are constant. I believe in the laws of logic, consistency, causation, naming systems. But I have a reason to do so, where it seems that others just uncritially assume these things to be true.
You are right. We would be reduced to following animal instincts. That is part of the TA proof.
BTW. The Bible isn't necessary in order to believe the TAG to be true. It can be held by any deist. Your attempts to discredit the Bible are unnecessary. Until you are convinced by the TAG, you have no need to explore different types of Gods to see which are puppets are which could be true. Science doesn't enter into this argument, because it is built on the foundation of this arguments outcome.
As far as I'm concerned, science IS the answer to the TAG.
No religion offers an answer to the TAG.
Actually the criteria of internal and external consistency are good (although this choice of criteria comes from logical thinking).
I'm sorry but I don't understand what the argument's outcome you're referring to is. (is it this specific choice of criteria to select a good set of assumptions?).
Our argument was about the fact that science doesn't indoctrinate.
science itself is in a catagory under subjection to the TAG. I'm saying that if you believe the TAG to be true, it supplies a proper foundation for science to be valid. the TAG is a metaphysical argument. This is why Science cannot be the answer to it.
In regards to science not indoctrinating: it is a world view where certain concepts aren't critically investigated. The metaphysics behind science aren't often mentioned because the pragmatic benefits of scientific advancement are thought of as being self attesting to its rightness. I have no qualms with indoctrination, if it's in the proper beliefs. But to claim you aren't indoctrinated, unlike everyone else, is a hypocritical fallacy. No one is completely objective.
I meant that according to the TAG, science is a good world view (hence a "solution").
All concepts are critically investigated. You just can't expect each person to investigate each concept for himself. This just isn't possible in a lifetime. Just because necessity makes ad-hominem arguments and uncritical trust common, doesn't mean that the system subjects people to indoctrination.
I assure you that the scientists I know take an interest in the metaphysics behind science.
Sort of. Although, I think as children, we are more susceptible to indoctrination. Core values are exampled. Certain disciplines are enforced. Praises are offered for obedience. One has no history to base truth statements upon. I think every time that someone chooses to believe something that he is told without criticism, it's a form of indoctrination. It's a kind of conditioning.
This is why I would posit that science is based on a deist notion. I fully agree that science is useful in its specific category of influence. I understand that ad-homonyms are common and they dismantle some of the certainty that science can offer. I am a bit baffled by your insistence on objectivity. Why is science so far outside of the realms of belief that it can't be subjective?
Science isn't objective. I never said that. Science knows that it isn't objective. Nothing which rests on human perception of the owrld can really be objective.
The claim of science is that it is the most empyrically verified and accurate explanation of the workings of the universe to date. Only scientism claims absolute knowledge.
School is often indoctrinating in form. But since the science accepts all challenges and upturnings of belief, it isn't in content.
its called the argument for "GOD". How is this not a deist notion? Please explain your assertion. I wouldn't say that science accepts all challenges. Sure, it accepts a majority of western challenges,
If you're talking about the royal sciences like physics and math. But softer sciences like biology are totally subjective. The data might be collected in an objective style, but the conclusions and application are subjective. science changes to fit the modes of the times, and buries its past. Phrenology, morphology, Alchemy. All of these studies helped to mold the scientific process, but their claims were abandoned like a red headed step child.
It's called the argument for god. But since it is essentially a "rule" to choose good world-views, and in practice science fits better than any known religion, I think it isn't deistic. (Unless TAG is the argument that the existence of absolutes prove god).
Name a challenge science didn't accept that couldn't be discredited by a 10-year-old.
Biology isn't TOTALLY subjective.
Science doesn't bury it's past. History of science is an option in most universities. Morphology is still used.
I don't think you understand the argument. TAG is a foundation on which science can make sense. It's a metaphysical argument. It gives merit the idea that the future will be the same as the past. It is used to set up a world where constants can exist. Challenge: life sprang from non-life?
There's tons and tons of scientific research being done to better understand how life sprang from non-life. I don't see a challenge in your yes/no question. And it's definitely something science isn't turning a blind eye to.
I suggest watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4 for an introduction to modern theories of abiogenesis.
Can you please link me to a good explanation of TAG, since wikipedia seems to have failed me?
There's tons and tons of scientific research being done to better understand how life sprang from non-life. I don't see a challenge in your yes/no question. And it's definitely something science isn't turning a blind eye to.
I suggest watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4 for an introduction to modern theories of abiogenesis.
Can you please link me to a good explanation of TAG, since wikipedia seems to have failed me?
Well, then you have to accept that science took the chalenge. unfortunately they don't have a book with the answer to all question so they're still working on it, although there's already some very good clues as to how this could be possible.
I'll listen to the debate in the next few days and get back to you.
Stein answered the TAG. His answer is that the laws of logic, of empirical inference and of morality are NOT universal absolutes. He also accounts for them through physical, sociological and practical explanations (Moral societies where people cooperate work better, induction is self-verifying (it's not proven, but it's consistent, and it's the only tool humans have to predict anything.), logic is a useful tool of thought (logic and morals HAVE changed in history btw).
If logic changes, then the nature of numbers also changes. It wouldn't be possible for simple equations like 1=1 to hold up.
Also, if you have to "teach" someone to think critically, isn't that proof that it's a sort of indoctrination. If ferral children naturally used the scientific method, then I would believe it wasn't indoctrinated. i.e. we don't have to teach infants to hold their breath underwater. It's instinctual.
Yeah, nice, though it was annoying that they kept ignoring each-other's answers and asking the same questions.
I didn't say all logic changes. But some rules of logic do. Which rules of logic do you consider axiomatic and which do you think are derived?
The axioms of set theory on which most of maths is based have undergone significant revision when paradoxes were found. These try to formalise the human ability to make categories etc.
Also, different logicians have had different opinions on what the rules of logic should be.
For example there's schools of mathematics that only allow constructive proofs, or don't accept proof by contradiction, or don't allow for mathematical induction and the concept of infinity, etc.
That's without adventuring in fuzzy logic, multiple-truth-value logic and the like.
When people reason, their rules are generally less specific than for logicians, and you'll see even more diversity.
Your view of "indoctrination" is too wide. All form of teaching and transfer of non-directly-observed or non-intuitive knowledge counts as indoctrination.
Teaching critical thinking is teaching a method, a tool, first of all. If you tell children that they HAVE to use critical thinking all the time and faith is A PRIORI bad, then that might count as indoctrination.
1=1 isn't found through logic. It's an axiom of peano arithmetic(x=x for all x). Consider it a definition of the symbol "=".
I don't know what peano arithmetic is. Can't even claim to. Seems like logic to me. a=a. It seems like you keep on jumping a tier down from the discussion at hand.
TAG addresses the concept that people can reason... at all. It's not a critique on the different ways that one can reason. That is the subject of another discourse.
Well, according to bernstein, the problem isnt' that people can reason. There's a biological/physical/psychological/neurological explanation to that.
His argument rests on the existence of universal absolutes. (in particular the existence (according to him) of absolute universal laws of logic and morals).
I don't see at all how the ability to think and reason in itself would need a god. Heck, even many animals can reason.
Right. As I said, a tier down. Stein already assumes that people reason, even though his "matter in Motion" world view cannot account for it. Thinking and reasoning could be thought of as god by some people. But that would also be stepping one floor down from the idea that there could be a god. You don't go attributing godliness to things unless you first have a meaningful category for which "god" could make sense.
Please explain why a "matter in motion" view of the universe cannot account for reason.
Look at a computer, try testing a chatterbot (like igod), look at formal-logic auto-proving software and the newest advances in artificial intelligence.
Now think of the incredible complexity of the neural network in the brain. Is there any particular reason wy you shouldn't believe that thought comes from an electro-chemical process?
Natural selection explains how humans ended up developing a big brain.
This concept would allow for certain strains of development where a doesn't = a, and at the same time a=a. This makes everything fairly subjective. Do to the natural selection, ad homonym accounts would be even more suspect because different sets of assumed variables could be in place. Old experiments would have to be constantly retested in order to make sure they are still up to date. Is this what you are saying?
There are many situations in life where you can't make a black and white distinction and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. So yes, sometimes a=a, nota=a and neither, all at the same time. e.g. God is one and god is 3.
Everything is extremely subjective. Statistics and consensus give things more objectivity in a sense.
Experiments ARE repeated multiple times by multiple researchers in science to make sure it wasn't a fluke and keep up with improved measurement techniques.
I guess you mean "ad hominem", not "ad homonym". And yes, with old texts one has to be extra cautious.
If a human were born with a brain that worked on a completely different type of logic which doesn't work in practice to help understand reality and predict it, natural selection will kill him off. Even if it worked, he would be shunned, and that would hinder his chances of reproduction. Hence natural selection offers insight into why most people have similar logic (there would be convergence).
True, there's no miracle solution to get out of solipsism (the only thing you're certain of is your own existance).
However, once you accept your senses, the existence of an objective reality and the principle of empirical induction, then you can start making very good guesses at what's going on.
I don't have the culture to make a disertation on fundamental epistemology, but as long as you settle for near-perfect objectivity it should be fine.
"once you accept your senses".- hasn't this been my point the whole time. You act as if it's a given that you have to accept them. But why is it a given?
Sure, its useful to do so. But why should it be so uncritically investigated.
I've tried to find a good critical way of being sure that we don't live in "the matrix" or whatever.
After much toil, I failed.
So, I decided to accept it, on the basis that I don't really have a choice. I can doubt my senses (and I do, especially memory and potential illusions) but that will lead me nowhere because I have nothing else to base my decisions on. It's sort of a "pascal's wager".
Note that even religion doesn't solve the problem.
Even if you decided to assume that god existed, and that the bible was the word of god, how could you know that you were reading the actual bible? How could you be sure that an omnibelevolent God wouldn't make you live a life of illusion without logic and experience? (Ignorance is bliss right? So maybe ignorance is good...)
So the religious man has to make all the uncritical assumptions I make and then some more.
the difference between your evolution explanation and the Transcendental one is that the TAG is only concerned with unpacking the meaning of "I think therefore I am" After that is sufficiently diagnosed, you can choose to look at ideas of evolution based concepts of logic verses god based ones. It seems more plausible to me that absolutes are a priori.
Or, you could try and have a system of thought that works wether or not there really are absolutes ;-). Seems better than having to assume them a priori.
RD is quickhand for Richard Dawkins.:) Sorry if that was confusing. If we believed in a system without absolutes, there would be no such thing as "truth", and no reason for this conversation outside of the desire to communicate. I assume laws of logic exist a priori only because I first have a reason to believe i "can" assume anything. No absolutes= to grounds for assumption.
in the question of an irrational god, isn't this more of an evolutionists fear than a theists? natural selection works on a random mutation principle. that sort of system seems to be ruled by fiat. and starting from scratch. wasn't my original commenting that RD wants to ban all universal truth claims that don't fit in with his own.
The mutations can be considered random, natural selection however is not ruled by fiat: it replicates useful mutations and eliminates harmful ones. There might seem to be "intention" in this, but it's just a direct result of the fact that children inherit mostly their parent's genes.
Evolution doesn't start from scratch. It starts from a functioning prokaryote cell. Abiogenesis is another story.
I don't think RD has thought his ideas out enough to relate notions of a priori to his world view. "Harmful and useful" have no meaning in an evolution based world. By fiat, i mean, whatever seems "good" at the time and location with no care for the future or past nor concept of consequences for actions taken. How can life spawning from nonlife be any different from the rest of the changes that are claimed to have happened by evolution?
but the mutations and the selection process are not related to each other. Increased reproductivity is merely an unwanted side effect that sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. It seems to me that it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in abiogenesis and random mutation than it does to believe in a rational god.
It doesn't take any leap of faith to believe in random mutation. It's visible in many human patients, and it can be observed in lab with simple experiments. Even the most hardcore YEC zealots accept this.
From the subjective point of view of the mutant, increased reproductivity is desirable. Why would you consider it a side-effect?
The processes aren't related, but when put together allow for evolutionary adaptability.
Abiogenesis is a young science. But IMHO plausibility has been established
increased reproductivity and mutation? Mutation is random, right. It isn't a response to the environment, right? So the timeline necessary for "beneficial" mutations would be extraordinarilly long, and unexpected. But more importantly, the same old argument is always the best. Probability of an action occurring will never enter into certainty. Nothing can be considered TRUE. Which means your opinion is just opinion, and i have no need to think it applies to me or anyone else.
Yes, the timeline for beneficial mutations is long. In the models I'm studying, a very slightly advantageous mutation would take about 200 generations to take over the gene pool in a large population.
Humans have about 20 base-pair mutations per generation. Even if you assume only 1/1000 are beneficial, that's a lot.
Are you saying that any opinion is worth any other opinion? That something that's been ascerted withing, say, a 99% certainty has the same truth value as a random guess?
99% of what? Your reference for the idea of percentage is based on another concept of "truth" (100%). In a world where truth resides in the mind and not a priori, "truth" is subjective. It's a percentage. It's an opinion. What is your constant?
I gave 99% as an example. Not for any specific statement I made.
Well, I was thinking of, say, a statistical probability. E.g. when making a statistical model, you can give confidence intervals for values you estimate, i.e. under the model's assumptions you'd expect the same kind of data you have, and chosing another value would only make sense if the data was totally unrepresentative.
I personally believe there is an objective reality. Hence there is (unprovable) objective truth.
by random mutation are you talking about diversity within a certain species? If you are trying to use that data to support a jump between species, that seems like a lot of science prayer to me. Where is the paper showing a species successfully mutating into two distinct species? Abiogenesis is plausible? how so?
I'm talking about diversity within a certain species AND speciation. Once you accept one, the next is fairly obvious: an isolated population will evolve seperately, untill it is so different it can no longer reproduce with the rest of the species. Speciation isn't an abrupt process ("jump").
Paper? What about Darwin's origin of species and the galapagos finches?
Most of the necessary chemical reactions necessary for abiogenesis have been shown to happen spontaneously in primordial conditions.
"fairly obvious" is far from what I would call it. "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything." -chesterton
observations of the diversity of life do not have sustainable evidence to proof of evolution. Where is the lab experiment? again, what are you referencing for abiogenesis?
Ok. So your opinion is that every year, the flu doesn't mutate into new strains, but God intervenes and creates new resistant versions of the flu cause he loves us so much?
What would constitute a "proof" of evolution?
I'm not a biologist myself. Some of the historical experiments (now outdated) creating organic compounds:
-Stanley Miller
-Juan Oro
If you ask Potholer54 he'll surely be glad to give you references for his claims on the catalytic properties of montmorillonite.
Proof of evolution would be subscribing to the scientific method. for example, you could continue to breed two sets of the same species in different environments till a sperm from one set and an egg from another cannot procreate. Don't fruit flies have a short enough life span to allow for this sort of test to happen. The "random mutation" variable would have to be accounted for. Has this type of experiment been done?
It's been done. On fruit flies. Rice & Salt 1980s.
I haven't managed, with google alone, to assert wether the speciation was only behavioural or if someone tried artificial insemination on the flies just to make sure ^_^.
My guess is that no one did, and hence you wouldn't consider the evidence as conclusive.
very interesting. I guess i was right that they do have a short enough life span. I am now forced to reckon with this, aren't I? Unfortunately, that wasn't my core argument.
Ok... So... Back to the TAG and the origin of absolutes?
My argument was this:
There's a certain number of core assumptions one has to make in order to live the way we do. (Such as assuming an objective reality consistent with our senses, assuming the rules of logic, assuming "I exist"...).
It would be nice to have a philosophical model that didn't need any assumptions, or lesser assumptions, but I don't think there is one, and "Assuming there is a god" doesn't allow the others to be deduced.
So, yes, there's a little flaw in my philosophy, but this is the best either of us can do.
What constant?
No, there is not an a-priori moral imperative. I am still undecided wether my morals should rest on desires, selfish genetics or limitation of evil. So for now I use a mixture, and go with the "increase total happiness"+"be nice to relatives"+"further human knowledge/humanity".
Might does not make right. Consensus is not truth.
What constant?: something which doesn't change by which things that change can be judged/measured. I seems to me that one should choose to live based on well reasoned core assumptions instead of the reverse; core assumptions made based on the way one chooses to live. TAG assumes less than any other philosophy i have heard. I'm not a huge follower of Descarte, but i wouldn't call it bollox.
It really depends what you want to measure doesn't it? Since you don't know if your constant is actually constant or not, it remains a relative measurement.
You don't really need absolute measurements anyway.
Can you please list the assumptions of the TAG? (So I can know what we're debating ^_^). I thought you tried to deduce everything from God, like descartes did. (To be honest "The concept of infinity couldn't originate in finite beings" is a pretty bollox statement)
Assumptions can't be justified a-priori. First you assume them, then see how things work out (like in statistics). Up to now, I think my assumptions lead to a world view that is fairly consistent, both externally and internally.
Personally, I think what I did was try to figure out what the implicit assumptions I (and nearly everyone) based my life on were and try to minimise them. Everyone is biased... unless you want to ask a baby what assumptions to make.
babies assume that you don't breath underwater and you have to grab onto anything that touches your hand.:) my understanding of TAG is that it's a prerequisite to reason. You must have a constant unchanging factor in order to perceive derivations from that constant. the idea of measurement, even relative measurement rests on the concept of an absolute measure to which it is related. Am I making sense? I feel like I've said this before.
You can hare relative measurement without any notion of absolute.
For example, I have no absolute measurement for food quality, but I can tell that McDonalds doesn't taste as good as my grandma's lasagne.
You don't need an absolute to make comparisons.
You FEEL the need for a constant unchanging factor. But physicists gave up "immobile ether" in favour of relativity (the name was chosen for a reason ;-) measurements are observer-dependant) ages ago.
Wouldn't this be the place where i chime in and say "The only reason you CAN relate the goodness McDonald's to your gramma's food is because you have an unchanging concept of 'good' by which you measure the two." Don't you have to use numbers in the equation that proves numbers have no fixed measure.
In order to explain theories of relativity, you must use word/symbols with absolute values. To presume relativity, you must assume a similarity between the two objects being related. Though your taste in food changed throughout time, your category of "good" still had the same abstract meaning. This would be equivalent to saying: the Clothes that I wore as a kid are too small for me to fit into them, so what I wear now can't be clothes.
Symbolism clearly doesn't have absolute value. There just aren't enough symbols around to give one to each physical value or constant.
Yes, for a comparison to be worthwhile both things have to have the compared characteristic to some extent.
Anyway, I do think that for SOME kinds of value-judgement, we rely on what seem to be unchanging categories etc. So let's just assume that I conceded this point, and now you have to explain why I'm not allowed to assume absolutes without god.
An unchanging integer is the basis for truth and falsity. It is constant and infinite. Because of this, it could already be considered to have the attributes of godliness. I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to assume absolutes without god, it's just inconsistent to do so. I don't know how you would do it without a lot of question begging.
I don't see any inconsistency in assuming absolutes without God. Nor question begging. I told you how I arrive at my assumptions: First assume, then see if it works.
God is an absolute, hence by assuming God you are first assuming an absolute without God.
An unchanging integer is an omnipotent creator?
The integers are a conventional mathematical construct. Infinity might even not exist in reality.
"God is an absolute, hence by assuming God you are first assuming an absolute without God."
Yes, but the only assumption that is made is that assumption is possible. Is it possible to assume that you don't assume.... maybe. but you can't and don't live that way.
"An unchanging integer has attributes of godliness." this is all I said.
Those aren't begged questions, they're assumptions. (and they're the same thing, really).
Please explain how, assuming God allows you to deduce consistency over time (without drawing from life experience for moral values ;-) unless you first show that these are consistent over time).
"Yes, but the only assumption that is made is that assumption is possible. Is it possible to assume that you don't assume...."
Nope. You assume that there is an absolute god too.
having absolutes is the prerequisite for assumption. Assumptions can only be made if similarities can be found. Similarities are only able to be made through comparing and contrasting and equating. These require a constant variable. A constant variable is something that doesn't change over time. To be unchanged over time is to be infinite. The unchanged variable is the guidepost for truth and fallacy. It is the object that allows meaning to exist. It guides your decisions. Sounds very godly.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but your misuse of mathematical nomenclature is appaling (i'm a maths student).
So can you please find another metaphor for god? (variable and constant are opposites, to be unchanged over time is to be infinite only in time and only if time is infinite itself, which you don't know.
How you could possibly use it as a guidepost for truth is beyond me. Knowing there IS absolute truth doesn't tell you WHAT it is.
Meaning? I would guess that its the ability to distinguish one thing from another. the ability to compare and contrast and equate? how does that sound.
Guidepost: previously stated, in order to find similarities between two objects, you measure them against a constant. the constant is the point of reference. the guidepost. What absolute will you concede for the sake of argument?
Ok for the guidepost. In my mind meaning has a completely different meaning... but ok.
I think it'll be more productive for us to concentrate on why it's deistic to assume constants and absolutes than for me to explain relativev measurement and the simple option of taking temporary constants.
Are you asking hat absolutes I will concede "exist" or what absolutes I will concede that I have to assume?
I'd rather talk about why constants are deistic, but anyway:
-The ability to distinguish one thing from the other:
Once you accept your senses and reality, you notice that you are not omnipotent, hence there is a "not you".
Creating classes of objects doesn't require any absolute (other than assuming the abstract entity "set").
If you give a specific example of a comparison where you use an absolute constant and can't think of any other way to do it, that would be very insightful to me.
lets use SPHERE as a constant. and compare a baseball and a football against it. which is more SPHERICAL? I find constants to be diestic because they are supernaturally assumed. it is the smallest act of circular reasoning that you could make. The are infinite and they are truthful. Never alter. The allow for meaning. they as necessary for daily interactions. without them, we would be reduced to... thoughtlessness, i think
I think that in practice, in thought processes, the concept of "sphere" arises by comparing objects and noting similarities in shape, thus creating the abstract entity "The set (or abstract quality) of objects that apear to have the same shape from all directions".
No need to have the sphere as an a-priori constant.
You're still interchanging assumption and circular reasoning ;-).
A football is not a perfect sphere.+ If you deflate it, at what point does it cease to be a "sphere"? Seems fuzzy
"constructs of the human psyche which help us to think and understand the world." this describes my point about using a deist world view to support an atheist one. constants don't "help" in understanding. they are the prerequisite. they are necessary in order to observe the naturalistic world. footballs. yeah, they are pointy. so, compared to a baseball, they are LESS spherical. but neither are a perfect SPHERE.
assumptions are unproven. circular reasoning is question begging.
"assumptions are unproven." By definition. But they're necessary.
"they are the prerequisite. they are necessary in order to observe the naturalistic world."
Depends what you mean by "observe".
Does a videocamera observe?
I think that what troubles you is that even as I am discussing the nature of thought, assumptions, absolutes etc; I am clearly already making many assumptions just to be able to think. I see no solution to that though.
Videocameras capture and record differences in light and dark, but make no sense of those patterns of light and dark. no matter how effective of a tool they might be, it is still through the programming of a creator that they distinguish anything. If you go down this road you will lead to intelligent design, unfortunately.
"If you go down this road you will lead to intelligent design, unfortunately."
Argument by analogy isn't logic ;-). Comparing reproducing life with inanimate objects fails completely at the creation vs evolution debate.
Ok. So by observe you mean see and make sense out of. Yes indeed, we need a whole bunch of concepts to observe things.
If you used "group" or "same" instead of shere, you would've at least got me to admit that I don't have a clue how these concepts arise in the human mind.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Ah yes, don't you just love it when a supposed question turns into their own little speech?
martinbondesson 3 months ago
oh my god i have no idea what his question was.
sam8110 4 months ago
Higgins Possum particle.
hivebrain 5 months ago
Feel bad for that kid at 4:45, he must have been nervous and it probably made his speech impediment worse. Dawkins patient as usual.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
The host guy (not Dawkins) is a douche. I wish he would stop interjecting to ask his own questions.
mrphelps546 2 years ago 14
If our genes made us breed like rabbits, it would actually be our demise. We're already overpopulating the world. If we were to all have 10 children, the problem would rise exponentially until wars over resources would rage all over the world. We're so smart now that we can actually have some control over our own evolution. and I think that's a good thing for the most part.
GuppyPal 2 years ago 7
4:40, man that guy is hard to understand.
GuppyPal 2 years ago 4
Yeah he mumbles all his words together, and he's Scottish :)
These vids have been so educational! Thanks for uploading.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
No kidding! and he just keeps going
Nemesis000000 2 years ago
Combination of stuttering, speech impediment, scottish accent and the fact that he's rambling a lot of shit.
whyaretherenoneleft 2 years ago
i meant moron.
Deathugee 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who is this moran on stage?
Deathugee 2 years ago
Who are you and why are you not in a cage?
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago 5
I'm Matthew who the fuck are you? I didn't mean Dawkins. i meant the guy asking questions, seems a bit simple.
Deathugee 2 years ago
You might want to make that clear next time, just look at your 6 thumbs down(5 when not including mine)
Also the guys asking questions is not on the stage they are in the audience, unless you mean the guy standing next to him.
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago
Yes that is what i meant. Thought it was obvious, sorry. 6 thumbs down, makes me a sad panda :(
Deathugee 2 years ago 3
Yeah south park kicks ass
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago
LoL!!! That teacher said that teaching kids to think for themselves is still considered by some to be "indoctrination". That got me laughing because the people that think that know one thing...if you teach kids to think critically and think for themselves then then will ultimately realize what bullshit religion is and then they will then become Atheist...I would consider that indirect indoctrination. The effect is unintentional and the means is absolutely moral. I love it.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Comment removed
publicanimal9 3 years ago
Maybe catching back up. We weren't doing too badly at the start, then there was a sort of national 'dark ages' that we are trying to pull our selves out of
mdiem 2 years ago
that is such a narrow-minded thing to say...and what do you think that statement says about you as a person?
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Comment removed
publicanimal9 2 years ago
I think you have fecal matter where your brain should be. I've lived in 6 countries around the world, some poor and some rich, and after being exposed to so many different types of people I know that each person should be judged as an individual by the content of his character and his actions...not by the government of the country in which they live. You are narrow-minded and your refusal to acknowledge that is proof that you are also in denial.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Comment removed
publicanimal9 2 years ago
When you say "United states of moron-land" you are clearly insulting the good people of the United States. To say that the United States has a "backward nature" is just stupidity when the greatest minds in history came here and created a system of law and order with a representative government that over the centuries attracted more of the greatest minds of every generation from all over the world to produce the most powerful and advanced nation in the world. In your ignorance you live in bliss.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
I think he was refering to the citizens, not the goverment. But, yes you are correct.
AtheistArgument 2 years ago
That fuckwit on stage chips in with some staggeringly banal comments.
What a a twat.
joesimki 3 years ago 6
All intelligent americans such as myself should move out of america and let it become a religious hell while we have beer and pizza and science :D
AsG1989 3 years ago
beer,pizza and science; God's gift to atheists :D
wink wink
Aaberg123 3 years ago
And women
AsG1989 3 years ago
Does this mean all atheist women are lesbian? :D
Aaberg123 3 years ago
Maybe :D!!
AsG1989 3 years ago
Then I'm royally fucked. Who wants a delusional GF. Sure, there maybe be some more "Oh my God" screaming in the bed, but the girl could try to drag you to church.
Life is one big dilemma.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
I wish I could find a girl who isnt a zellet...all my GFs have been.. :"{
AsG1989 3 years ago
I'd totally go to church if it meant that my wife would ... let's say...pay attention to me.
Sadly, in this case, my wife is also an atheist.
She was raised catholic, so I expected more.
"God" bless the catholic girls of my youth!!
ggab7768 3 years ago
I think the contrary. Leaving the vast amount of natural and civilized resources of America in the hands of the religious would be a terrible and frightening idea.
anthonzi 3 years ago
Well I am scared as fuck to admit im an atheist where I live...Believing in god without religion is not good enough here. You have to believe in god and share their personal religion in order to be respected. It was bad enough when I was just a theist and they hated me, that made me become agnostic then atheist.
AsG1989 3 years ago
Comment removed
publicanimal9 3 years ago
I'm the same way...I still haven't told my father that I'm an Atheist because I know he would be disappointed.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Comment removed
publicanimal9 3 years ago
Hmmm, I just watched this video rather than procreating. Looks like Dawkins is right...
bdf2718 3 years ago
rofl @ 4:00 :D
Schpwuette 3 years ago
The guy at 4:00 is off his bloody rocker.
jzero4813 3 years ago
Incredible how he can give a meaningful and coherent answer to that last question. I had never thought about that question but an incredibly intelligent answer.
Ryszze 3 years ago 2
And I'm ashamed to be American, 'cause I'm stuck with these ignorant fuckers.
pyrix 3 years ago
Don't be too ashamed, your ignorant fuckers may be the most outspoken but we have more than a few of them here too ;)
megamarsvin 3 years ago
He gets even more respect from me for being honest.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
Considering that religion started out thinking the world was flat (and a great deal of other things) I sadly doubt the discoveries of CERN will put a dent in peoples delusions.
kitsunde 3 years ago 9
gosh, look how nice they were to that gentleman around 4:40 who couldn't get a question out. Never see that in the U.S.
brautigan81 3 years ago 24
here in the us, we don't have time to waste. we need to have instant food, instant gratification...
we don't mean to be impolite; it's just our socialization. don't take your panties off over our ways of doing things.
we & millions around the world have corollary views about bloody brit silliness (stiff upper lip, clewless arrogance, etc.), too; not warm or likable traits, but such are your norms and socialization. we don't take our panties off over such brit nonsense, either.
HenryDavidT 3 years ago
"...we don't mean to be impolite; it's just our socialization. don't take your panties off over our ways of doing things."
What! Don't say that. Anything that gets panties off is a good thing.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
hahaha
iaeruo 3 years ago
"we & millions around the world have corollary views about bloody brit silliness (stiff upper lip, clewless arrogance, etc.)"
Are you saying that you don't draw a distinction between Scottish, English, Welsh & Irish?
catalyst8 3 years ago
That's called stereotype, and it's rarely true.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
@brautigan81 Then you haven't been to a lot of college guest seminars.
Okin17 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do people think that priests are out to sabotage and subvert scientists and/or that scientists are out to subvert religious leaders? The truth is science and faith are not mutually exclusive and that issues within each of these fields are unrelated, and dont give me bull about stem cell research because that is a moral, not a religious call. We need to realize that learning science we are trusting that what is contained in the textbook is true but we also must realize the bible is not fact
mafia67 3 years ago
xtianity has always attempted to subvert and hinder science. From Galileo to the HPV vaccine (or stem cell research), religious morons have always attempted to stop the human progression of real knowledge. Instead they want to pound the square peg of their theology into the round hole that is reality and cling to their bronze-age, goat-herder fairy tales.
leftduplicity 3 years ago 33
@leftduplicity Technicall, its iron age myths ;)
MMAoracle 3 months ago
i suggest you read dawkins book "the god delusion." he writes very persuasively against the "non-overlapping magesteria" argument. a universe with a god would be very different than one without, especially if it's a god that regularly intervenes in human affairs in the form of miracles or answering prayers. we would be able to measure this intervention scientifically. studies have been performed to look for the efficacy of prayer, and have all been either poorly conducted or inconclusive.
raveryyyy 3 years ago 8
My mate Dougie is the legend that asked that INSANE QUESTION!!! I asked one in number 11!!
paulhobanx 3 years ago
CERN is one big expensive experiment, for: higins particle or no higgins particle?
or simply more constituent particles...
TheSophist2007 3 years ago
Religion is not some vengeful abrahamic god's word, it's scary mythology, written by men, translated by wolves, followed by sheep!
I'm comfortable joining with any (including religious believer) in safeguarding secular humanistic ethical standards. But divine attribution is a child-like delusion.
danielnz1 3 years ago 2
What did that guy say at 4:30?
LHMcalindon 3 years ago
All these crazy accents! I wish God had designed these questioners with voices easier for me to understand!
eirefrance 3 years ago
Ha, yeah, I thougt the same.
juliecranford 3 years ago
Yeah. Why cant y'all speak proper english like they do in the USA
syrett76 3 years ago
All these crazy accents! I wish God had designed these questioners with voices easier for me to understand!
eirefrance 3 years ago
Actualy, it is said in Steven 12:45 - God hadeth made not a voice of difference, but ears to hear sounds differently. Thus let women be heard as weak inferior creatures.(Joke. What is sad is that some people may think I'm serious.)
Gwisss 3 years ago
Can you yell out QFT at these kind of things? Is he simply talking about whether science can satisfy people's need to answer philosophical questions?
I personally don't think that's science's job - science should and always has been devise the theory, get the evidence, rigorously test it, and accumulate a knowledge base of truth. But he answered that - there isn't meaning to be found in every single process.
TheConciseStatement 3 years ago
4:07...The Large Hard-On Glider?
EGarrett01 3 years ago 2
Large Hadron Collider
PornoSatan 3 years ago
I know what he meant, but that's what he sounded like.
EGarrett01 3 years ago
WTF is that guy at 4:05 talking about?? That has to be the most incoherent and utterly confused man I've ever seen!
Swa6543 3 years ago 4
"WTF is that guy at 4:05 talking about?? That has to be the most incoherent and utterly confused man I've ever seen!"
And he just wouldn't shut the hell up either.
smaakjeks 3 years ago 2
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
120casst 3 years ago
I think since we have reached a point where we have so much knowledge to pass on, a lot of the info has to be just accepted by the next generation, this might leave them open to accepting faulty knowledge. It is impossible for one to test all the knowledge we've acquired, and a good deal just has to be accepted. This leaves an opening for faulty knowledge to trickle in with what has to be accepted.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
The next generation can still have access to the same documented evidence (atleast in majority of cases).
nawitus 3 years ago
Yes, I thought of that, but an individual can't actually test all the knowledge, and just has to accept some experiments as being legitimate. And the documented evidence might be interpreted in such a way as to use it to 'prove' something else. This was just a idea that popped into my head that seemed a possible reason for continued superstition.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
I would be happy if we could at least pass on the basics to the next gen, like the real age of the Earth, gravity, evolution etc, FACTS. Just these basics will utterly destroy the supernatural if applied. And of course that blind faith is NOT a virtue.
120casst 3 years ago 2
I disagree, faulty knowledge is always discovered, as it does not yield consistent results. We can not test all previous scientific discoveries directly, but the consistency of data gained by principles that rely on other, older principles offers some validation of the previous discoveries.
ericv00 3 years ago
Teaching your children the proper way to think so that they can have as accurate a picture of reality as possible is not indoctrination.
Retarding your child's mind to think bronze age myths actually happened is the definition of indoctrination.
Mjhavok 3 years ago 13
Well that's and interesting opinion, its to bad that you had to disturb the meaning of the word indoctrination in order to prove it.
qstephe 3 years ago
Definitions of indoctrination (google):
the process of teaching a partisan or sectarian point of view.
teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a system of belief (such as a philosophy or religion).
Paulginz 3 years ago
i agree, "accept doctrines uncritically" applies to the scientific community as well as some religious ones. My nation of of people include anyone who has studied Transcendental argumentation for the existence of God. It might not be popular, but it is an answer to why postulates are constant. I believe in the laws of logic, consistency, causation, naming systems. But I have a reason to do so, where it seems that others just uncritially assume these things to be true.
qstephe 3 years ago
It's impossible to do anything critically without these assumptions. Other than follow animal instincts.
How can you judge that you have a good reason to believe in them without first assuming them?
The postulates aren't constant btw.
I thought that by "nation" you meant countries. I have studied some philosophy, and now checked the Transcendental argument on wikipedia.
And it's a rubbish argument. Plus, Even if there was such a thing as absolute morals, the bible would be far off course.
Paulginz 3 years ago
You are right. We would be reduced to following animal instincts. That is part of the TA proof.
BTW. The Bible isn't necessary in order to believe the TAG to be true. It can be held by any deist. Your attempts to discredit the Bible are unnecessary. Until you are convinced by the TAG, you have no need to explore different types of Gods to see which are puppets are which could be true. Science doesn't enter into this argument, because it is built on the foundation of this arguments outcome.
qstephe 3 years ago
Well.
As far as I'm concerned, science IS the answer to the TAG.
No religion offers an answer to the TAG.
Actually the criteria of internal and external consistency are good (although this choice of criteria comes from logical thinking).
I'm sorry but I don't understand what the argument's outcome you're referring to is. (is it this specific choice of criteria to select a good set of assumptions?).
Our argument was about the fact that science doesn't indoctrinate.
Paulginz 3 years ago
science itself is in a catagory under subjection to the TAG. I'm saying that if you believe the TAG to be true, it supplies a proper foundation for science to be valid. the TAG is a metaphysical argument. This is why Science cannot be the answer to it.
qstephe 3 years ago
In regards to science not indoctrinating: it is a world view where certain concepts aren't critically investigated. The metaphysics behind science aren't often mentioned because the pragmatic benefits of scientific advancement are thought of as being self attesting to its rightness. I have no qualms with indoctrination, if it's in the proper beliefs. But to claim you aren't indoctrinated, unlike everyone else, is a hypocritical fallacy. No one is completely objective.
qstephe 3 years ago
I meant that according to the TAG, science is a good world view (hence a "solution").
All concepts are critically investigated. You just can't expect each person to investigate each concept for himself. This just isn't possible in a lifetime. Just because necessity makes ad-hominem arguments and uncritical trust common, doesn't mean that the system subjects people to indoctrination.
I assure you that the scientists I know take an interest in the metaphysics behind science.
Paulginz 3 years ago
According to you, every time someone is given information he is being indoctrinated.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Sort of. Although, I think as children, we are more susceptible to indoctrination. Core values are exampled. Certain disciplines are enforced. Praises are offered for obedience. One has no history to base truth statements upon. I think every time that someone chooses to believe something that he is told without criticism, it's a form of indoctrination. It's a kind of conditioning.
qstephe 3 years ago
This is why I would posit that science is based on a deist notion. I fully agree that science is useful in its specific category of influence. I understand that ad-homonyms are common and they dismantle some of the certainty that science can offer. I am a bit baffled by your insistence on objectivity. Why is science so far outside of the realms of belief that it can't be subjective?
qstephe 3 years ago
Science isn't objective. I never said that. Science knows that it isn't objective. Nothing which rests on human perception of the owrld can really be objective.
The claim of science is that it is the most empyrically verified and accurate explanation of the workings of the universe to date. Only scientism claims absolute knowledge.
School is often indoctrinating in form. But since the science accepts all challenges and upturnings of belief, it isn't in content.
TAG isn't a deist notion.
Paulginz 3 years ago
its called the argument for "GOD". How is this not a deist notion? Please explain your assertion. I wouldn't say that science accepts all challenges. Sure, it accepts a majority of western challenges,
qstephe 3 years ago
If you're talking about the royal sciences like physics and math. But softer sciences like biology are totally subjective. The data might be collected in an objective style, but the conclusions and application are subjective. science changes to fit the modes of the times, and buries its past. Phrenology, morphology, Alchemy. All of these studies helped to mold the scientific process, but their claims were abandoned like a red headed step child.
qstephe 3 years ago
It's called the argument for god. But since it is essentially a "rule" to choose good world-views, and in practice science fits better than any known religion, I think it isn't deistic. (Unless TAG is the argument that the existence of absolutes prove god).
Name a challenge science didn't accept that couldn't be discredited by a 10-year-old.
Biology isn't TOTALLY subjective.
Science doesn't bury it's past. History of science is an option in most universities. Morphology is still used.
Paulginz 3 years ago
I don't think you understand the argument. TAG is a foundation on which science can make sense. It's a metaphysical argument. It gives merit the idea that the future will be the same as the past. It is used to set up a world where constants can exist. Challenge: life sprang from non-life?
qstephe 3 years ago
There's tons and tons of scientific research being done to better understand how life sprang from non-life. I don't see a challenge in your yes/no question. And it's definitely something science isn't turning a blind eye to.
I suggest watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4 for an introduction to modern theories of abiogenesis.
Can you please link me to a good explanation of TAG, since wikipedia seems to have failed me?
Paulginz 3 years ago
There's tons and tons of scientific research being done to better understand how life sprang from non-life. I don't see a challenge in your yes/no question. And it's definitely something science isn't turning a blind eye to.
I suggest watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4 for an introduction to modern theories of abiogenesis.
Can you please link me to a good explanation of TAG, since wikipedia seems to have failed me?
Paulginz 3 years ago
I'm not arguing that science is spending tons of time researching it. But the assumption that life could spring from non-life is one in question.
I would listen to the Bahnsen vs. Stein debate for Theism verses Atheism.
qstephe 3 years ago
Well, then you have to accept that science took the chalenge. unfortunately they don't have a book with the answer to all question so they're still working on it, although there's already some very good clues as to how this could be possible.
I'll listen to the debate in the next few days and get back to you.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Ok, first remark:
Stein answered the TAG. His answer is that the laws of logic, of empirical inference and of morality are NOT universal absolutes. He also accounts for them through physical, sociological and practical explanations (Moral societies where people cooperate work better, induction is self-verifying (it's not proven, but it's consistent, and it's the only tool humans have to predict anything.), logic is a useful tool of thought (logic and morals HAVE changed in history btw).
Paulginz 3 years ago
It's a good debate, right?
If logic changes, then the nature of numbers also changes. It wouldn't be possible for simple equations like 1=1 to hold up.
Also, if you have to "teach" someone to think critically, isn't that proof that it's a sort of indoctrination. If ferral children naturally used the scientific method, then I would believe it wasn't indoctrinated. i.e. we don't have to teach infants to hold their breath underwater. It's instinctual.
qstephe 3 years ago
Yeah, nice, though it was annoying that they kept ignoring each-other's answers and asking the same questions.
I didn't say all logic changes. But some rules of logic do. Which rules of logic do you consider axiomatic and which do you think are derived?
The axioms of set theory on which most of maths is based have undergone significant revision when paradoxes were found. These try to formalise the human ability to make categories etc.
Some cultures don't accept excluded middle.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Also, different logicians have had different opinions on what the rules of logic should be.
For example there's schools of mathematics that only allow constructive proofs, or don't accept proof by contradiction, or don't allow for mathematical induction and the concept of infinity, etc.
That's without adventuring in fuzzy logic, multiple-truth-value logic and the like.
When people reason, their rules are generally less specific than for logicians, and you'll see even more diversity.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Your view of "indoctrination" is too wide. All form of teaching and transfer of non-directly-observed or non-intuitive knowledge counts as indoctrination.
Teaching critical thinking is teaching a method, a tool, first of all. If you tell children that they HAVE to use critical thinking all the time and faith is A PRIORI bad, then that might count as indoctrination.
1=1 isn't found through logic. It's an axiom of peano arithmetic(x=x for all x). Consider it a definition of the symbol "=".
Paulginz 3 years ago
I don't know what peano arithmetic is. Can't even claim to. Seems like logic to me. a=a. It seems like you keep on jumping a tier down from the discussion at hand.
TAG addresses the concept that people can reason... at all. It's not a critique on the different ways that one can reason. That is the subject of another discourse.
qstephe 3 years ago
Well, according to bernstein, the problem isnt' that people can reason. There's a biological/physical/psychological/neurological explanation to that.
His argument rests on the existence of universal absolutes. (in particular the existence (according to him) of absolute universal laws of logic and morals).
I don't see at all how the ability to think and reason in itself would need a god. Heck, even many animals can reason.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Right. As I said, a tier down. Stein already assumes that people reason, even though his "matter in Motion" world view cannot account for it. Thinking and reasoning could be thought of as god by some people. But that would also be stepping one floor down from the idea that there could be a god. You don't go attributing godliness to things unless you first have a meaningful category for which "god" could make sense.
Animals can be deists.
qstephe 3 years ago
Please explain why a "matter in motion" view of the universe cannot account for reason.
Look at a computer, try testing a chatterbot (like igod), look at formal-logic auto-proving software and the newest advances in artificial intelligence.
Now think of the incredible complexity of the neural network in the brain. Is there any particular reason wy you shouldn't believe that thought comes from an electro-chemical process?
Natural selection explains how humans ended up developing a big brain.
Paulginz 3 years ago
This concept would allow for certain strains of development where a doesn't = a, and at the same time a=a. This makes everything fairly subjective. Do to the natural selection, ad homonym accounts would be even more suspect because different sets of assumed variables could be in place. Old experiments would have to be constantly retested in order to make sure they are still up to date. Is this what you are saying?
qstephe 3 years ago
There are many situations in life where you can't make a black and white distinction and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. So yes, sometimes a=a, nota=a and neither, all at the same time. e.g. God is one and god is 3.
Everything is extremely subjective. Statistics and consensus give things more objectivity in a sense.
Experiments ARE repeated multiple times by multiple researchers in science to make sure it wasn't a fluke and keep up with improved measurement techniques.
Paulginz 3 years ago
I guess you mean "ad hominem", not "ad homonym". And yes, with old texts one has to be extra cautious.
If a human were born with a brain that worked on a completely different type of logic which doesn't work in practice to help understand reality and predict it, natural selection will kill him off. Even if it worked, he would be shunned, and that would hinder his chances of reproduction. Hence natural selection offers insight into why most people have similar logic (there would be convergence).
Paulginz 3 years ago
Then objectivity doesn't exist. All truth claims are doctrinal and my point is made that it is necessary to indoctrinate the youth.
qstephe 3 years ago
Well, this is a very old metaphysical problem.
True, there's no miracle solution to get out of solipsism (the only thing you're certain of is your own existance).
However, once you accept your senses, the existence of an objective reality and the principle of empirical induction, then you can start making very good guesses at what's going on.
I don't have the culture to make a disertation on fundamental epistemology, but as long as you settle for near-perfect objectivity it should be fine.
Paulginz 3 years ago
"once you accept your senses".- hasn't this been my point the whole time. You act as if it's a given that you have to accept them. But why is it a given?
Sure, its useful to do so. But why should it be so uncritically investigated.
qstephe 3 years ago
Well, this is how I see it:
I've tried to find a good critical way of being sure that we don't live in "the matrix" or whatever.
After much toil, I failed.
So, I decided to accept it, on the basis that I don't really have a choice. I can doubt my senses (and I do, especially memory and potential illusions) but that will lead me nowhere because I have nothing else to base my decisions on. It's sort of a "pascal's wager".
I accept the postulates through necessity.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Note that even religion doesn't solve the problem.
Even if you decided to assume that god existed, and that the bible was the word of god, how could you know that you were reading the actual bible? How could you be sure that an omnibelevolent God wouldn't make you live a life of illusion without logic and experience? (Ignorance is bliss right? So maybe ignorance is good...)
So the religious man has to make all the uncritical assumptions I make and then some more.
Paulginz 3 years ago
the difference between your evolution explanation and the Transcendental one is that the TAG is only concerned with unpacking the meaning of "I think therefore I am" After that is sufficiently diagnosed, you can choose to look at ideas of evolution based concepts of logic verses god based ones. It seems more plausible to me that absolutes are a priori.
qstephe 3 years ago
Or, you could try and have a system of thought that works wether or not there really are absolutes ;-). Seems better than having to assume them a priori.
Paulginz 3 years ago
RD is quickhand for Richard Dawkins.:) Sorry if that was confusing. If we believed in a system without absolutes, there would be no such thing as "truth", and no reason for this conversation outside of the desire to communicate. I assume laws of logic exist a priori only because I first have a reason to believe i "can" assume anything. No absolutes= to grounds for assumption.
qstephe 3 years ago
in the question of an irrational god, isn't this more of an evolutionists fear than a theists? natural selection works on a random mutation principle. that sort of system seems to be ruled by fiat. and starting from scratch. wasn't my original commenting that RD wants to ban all universal truth claims that don't fit in with his own.
qstephe 3 years ago
What's RD?
Paulginz 3 years ago
Why would and atheist fear any kind of god?
The mutations can be considered random, natural selection however is not ruled by fiat: it replicates useful mutations and eliminates harmful ones. There might seem to be "intention" in this, but it's just a direct result of the fact that children inherit mostly their parent's genes.
Evolution doesn't start from scratch. It starts from a functioning prokaryote cell. Abiogenesis is another story.
Whend does RD try to ban any claim a priori?
Paulginz 3 years ago
I don't think RD has thought his ideas out enough to relate notions of a priori to his world view. "Harmful and useful" have no meaning in an evolution based world. By fiat, i mean, whatever seems "good" at the time and location with no care for the future or past nor concept of consequences for actions taken. How can life spawning from nonlife be any different from the rest of the changes that are claimed to have happened by evolution?
qstephe 3 years ago
Well, "Increasing your chances at reproduction at the time and location" is still not arbitrary. Just shortsighted.
Life spawning is very different from evolution.
You can only have evolution once you have genetic material duplicating itself, mutating and being exposed to natural selection.
In that situation evolution is an inevitable consequence.
To go from non-self-reproducting molecules to self-reproducing molecules is different. It seems to be purely a question of chemistry.
Paulginz 3 years ago
but the mutations and the selection process are not related to each other. Increased reproductivity is merely an unwanted side effect that sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. It seems to me that it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in abiogenesis and random mutation than it does to believe in a rational god.
qstephe 3 years ago
It doesn't take any leap of faith to believe in random mutation. It's visible in many human patients, and it can be observed in lab with simple experiments. Even the most hardcore YEC zealots accept this.
From the subjective point of view of the mutant, increased reproductivity is desirable. Why would you consider it a side-effect?
The processes aren't related, but when put together allow for evolutionary adaptability.
Abiogenesis is a young science. But IMHO plausibility has been established
Paulginz 3 years ago
increased reproductivity and mutation? Mutation is random, right. It isn't a response to the environment, right? So the timeline necessary for "beneficial" mutations would be extraordinarilly long, and unexpected. But more importantly, the same old argument is always the best. Probability of an action occurring will never enter into certainty. Nothing can be considered TRUE. Which means your opinion is just opinion, and i have no need to think it applies to me or anyone else.
qstephe 3 years ago
Yes, the timeline for beneficial mutations is long. In the models I'm studying, a very slightly advantageous mutation would take about 200 generations to take over the gene pool in a large population.
Humans have about 20 base-pair mutations per generation. Even if you assume only 1/1000 are beneficial, that's a lot.
Are you saying that any opinion is worth any other opinion? That something that's been ascerted withing, say, a 99% certainty has the same truth value as a random guess?
Paulginz 3 years ago
99% of what? Your reference for the idea of percentage is based on another concept of "truth" (100%). In a world where truth resides in the mind and not a priori, "truth" is subjective. It's a percentage. It's an opinion. What is your constant?
qstephe 3 years ago
I gave 99% as an example. Not for any specific statement I made.
Well, I was thinking of, say, a statistical probability. E.g. when making a statistical model, you can give confidence intervals for values you estimate, i.e. under the model's assumptions you'd expect the same kind of data you have, and chosing another value would only make sense if the data was totally unrepresentative.
I personally believe there is an objective reality. Hence there is (unprovable) objective truth.
Paulginz 3 years ago
by random mutation are you talking about diversity within a certain species? If you are trying to use that data to support a jump between species, that seems like a lot of science prayer to me. Where is the paper showing a species successfully mutating into two distinct species? Abiogenesis is plausible? how so?
qstephe 3 years ago
I'm talking about diversity within a certain species AND speciation. Once you accept one, the next is fairly obvious: an isolated population will evolve seperately, untill it is so different it can no longer reproduce with the rest of the species. Speciation isn't an abrupt process ("jump").
Paper? What about Darwin's origin of species and the galapagos finches?
Most of the necessary chemical reactions necessary for abiogenesis have been shown to happen spontaneously in primordial conditions.
Paulginz 3 years ago
"fairly obvious" is far from what I would call it. "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything." -chesterton
observations of the diversity of life do not have sustainable evidence to proof of evolution. Where is the lab experiment? again, what are you referencing for abiogenesis?
qstephe 3 years ago
Ok. So your opinion is that every year, the flu doesn't mutate into new strains, but God intervenes and creates new resistant versions of the flu cause he loves us so much?
What would constitute a "proof" of evolution?
I'm not a biologist myself. Some of the historical experiments (now outdated) creating organic compounds:
-Stanley Miller
-Juan Oro
If you ask Potholer54 he'll surely be glad to give you references for his claims on the catalytic properties of montmorillonite.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Proof of evolution would be subscribing to the scientific method. for example, you could continue to breed two sets of the same species in different environments till a sperm from one set and an egg from another cannot procreate. Don't fruit flies have a short enough life span to allow for this sort of test to happen. The "random mutation" variable would have to be accounted for. Has this type of experiment been done?
qstephe 3 years ago
Yep.
It's been done. On fruit flies. Rice & Salt 1980s.
I haven't managed, with google alone, to assert wether the speciation was only behavioural or if someone tried artificial insemination on the flies just to make sure ^_^.
My guess is that no one did, and hence you wouldn't consider the evidence as conclusive.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) also seems like a good experiment.
Mating produced sterile males, so I guess the speciation was aserted.
If you google: talk of origins speciation. You'll find a wealth of cases and references.
Paulginz 3 years ago
very interesting. I guess i was right that they do have a short enough life span. I am now forced to reckon with this, aren't I? Unfortunately, that wasn't my core argument.
What is your constant?
Is there a moral imperative?
Does might make right?
qstephe 3 years ago
Ok... So... Back to the TAG and the origin of absolutes?
My argument was this:
There's a certain number of core assumptions one has to make in order to live the way we do. (Such as assuming an objective reality consistent with our senses, assuming the rules of logic, assuming "I exist"...).
It would be nice to have a philosophical model that didn't need any assumptions, or lesser assumptions, but I don't think there is one, and "Assuming there is a god" doesn't allow the others to be deduced.
Paulginz 3 years ago
(cont.)
I think Descarte's solution is bollocks.
So, yes, there's a little flaw in my philosophy, but this is the best either of us can do.
What constant?
No, there is not an a-priori moral imperative. I am still undecided wether my morals should rest on desires, selfish genetics or limitation of evil. So for now I use a mixture, and go with the "increase total happiness"+"be nice to relatives"+"further human knowledge/humanity".
Might does not make right. Consensus is not truth.
Paulginz 3 years ago
how do you justify those opinions
"might doesn't make right"...
What constant?: something which doesn't change by which things that change can be judged/measured. I seems to me that one should choose to live based on well reasoned core assumptions instead of the reverse; core assumptions made based on the way one chooses to live. TAG assumes less than any other philosophy i have heard. I'm not a huge follower of Descarte, but i wouldn't call it bollox.
qstephe 3 years ago
Well...
It really depends what you want to measure doesn't it? Since you don't know if your constant is actually constant or not, it remains a relative measurement.
You don't really need absolute measurements anyway.
Can you please list the assumptions of the TAG? (So I can know what we're debating ^_^). I thought you tried to deduce everything from God, like descartes did. (To be honest "The concept of infinity couldn't originate in finite beings" is a pretty bollox statement)
Paulginz 3 years ago
As for justifying my opinions...
Assumptions can't be justified a-priori. First you assume them, then see how things work out (like in statistics). Up to now, I think my assumptions lead to a world view that is fairly consistent, both externally and internally.
Personally, I think what I did was try to figure out what the implicit assumptions I (and nearly everyone) based my life on were and try to minimise them. Everyone is biased... unless you want to ask a baby what assumptions to make.
Paulginz 3 years ago
babies assume that you don't breath underwater and you have to grab onto anything that touches your hand.:) my understanding of TAG is that it's a prerequisite to reason. You must have a constant unchanging factor in order to perceive derivations from that constant. the idea of measurement, even relative measurement rests on the concept of an absolute measure to which it is related. Am I making sense? I feel like I've said this before.
qstephe 3 years ago
You make sense.
But you are mistaken.
You can hare relative measurement without any notion of absolute.
For example, I have no absolute measurement for food quality, but I can tell that McDonalds doesn't taste as good as my grandma's lasagne.
You don't need an absolute to make comparisons.
You FEEL the need for a constant unchanging factor. But physicists gave up "immobile ether" in favour of relativity (the name was chosen for a reason ;-) measurements are observer-dependant) ages ago.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Wouldn't this be the place where i chime in and say "The only reason you CAN relate the goodness McDonald's to your gramma's food is because you have an unchanging concept of 'good' by which you measure the two." Don't you have to use numbers in the equation that proves numbers have no fixed measure.
qstephe 3 years ago
"Don't you have to use numbers in the equation that proves numbers have no fixed measure."
What???
My concept of good isn't unchanging.
As a kid, I hated broccoli and spinach. Now I like them.
Depending on my state of mind at the moment (Am I in a hurry? Stressed? Famished?) I might appreciate certain types of food more than usual.
My morals, also, can evolve when I have a relevant intelectual discussion on them or come to realise something important.
Paulginz 3 years ago
In order to explain theories of relativity, you must use word/symbols with absolute values. To presume relativity, you must assume a similarity between the two objects being related. Though your taste in food changed throughout time, your category of "good" still had the same abstract meaning. This would be equivalent to saying: the Clothes that I wore as a kid are too small for me to fit into them, so what I wear now can't be clothes.
qstephe 3 years ago
Symbolism clearly doesn't have absolute value. There just aren't enough symbols around to give one to each physical value or constant.
Yes, for a comparison to be worthwhile both things have to have the compared characteristic to some extent.
Anyway, I do think that for SOME kinds of value-judgement, we rely on what seem to be unchanging categories etc. So let's just assume that I conceded this point, and now you have to explain why I'm not allowed to assume absolutes without god.
Paulginz 3 years ago
An unchanging integer is the basis for truth and falsity. It is constant and infinite. Because of this, it could already be considered to have the attributes of godliness. I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to assume absolutes without god, it's just inconsistent to do so. I don't know how you would do it without a lot of question begging.
qstephe 3 years ago
I don't see any inconsistency in assuming absolutes without God. Nor question begging. I told you how I arrive at my assumptions: First assume, then see if it works.
God is an absolute, hence by assuming God you are first assuming an absolute without God.
An unchanging integer is an omnipotent creator?
The integers are a conventional mathematical construct. Infinity might even not exist in reality.
I fail to see where you're getting at.
Ask me the questions I'm supposed to beg.
Paulginz 3 years ago
questions begged:
The future will be like the past.
Consistency over time.
"God is an absolute, hence by assuming God you are first assuming an absolute without God."
Yes, but the only assumption that is made is that assumption is possible. Is it possible to assume that you don't assume.... maybe. but you can't and don't live that way.
"An unchanging integer has attributes of godliness." this is all I said.
qstephe 3 years ago
Those aren't begged questions, they're assumptions. (and they're the same thing, really).
Please explain how, assuming God allows you to deduce consistency over time (without drawing from life experience for moral values ;-) unless you first show that these are consistent over time).
"Yes, but the only assumption that is made is that assumption is possible. Is it possible to assume that you don't assume...."
Nope. You assume that there is an absolute god too.
Any well-defined concept too then
Paulginz 3 years ago
having absolutes is the prerequisite for assumption. Assumptions can only be made if similarities can be found. Similarities are only able to be made through comparing and contrasting and equating. These require a constant variable. A constant variable is something that doesn't change over time. To be unchanged over time is to be infinite. The unchanged variable is the guidepost for truth and fallacy. It is the object that allows meaning to exist. It guides your decisions. Sounds very godly.
qstephe 3 years ago
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but your misuse of mathematical nomenclature is appaling (i'm a maths student).
So can you please find another metaphor for god? (variable and constant are opposites, to be unchanged over time is to be infinite only in time and only if time is infinite itself, which you don't know.
How you could possibly use it as a guidepost for truth is beyond me. Knowing there IS absolute truth doesn't tell you WHAT it is.
What is meaning exactly?)
Paulginz 3 years ago
Meaning? I would guess that its the ability to distinguish one thing from another. the ability to compare and contrast and equate? how does that sound.
Guidepost: previously stated, in order to find similarities between two objects, you measure them against a constant. the constant is the point of reference. the guidepost. What absolute will you concede for the sake of argument?
qstephe 3 years ago
Ok for the guidepost. In my mind meaning has a completely different meaning... but ok.
I think it'll be more productive for us to concentrate on why it's deistic to assume constants and absolutes than for me to explain relativev measurement and the simple option of taking temporary constants.
Are you asking hat absolutes I will concede "exist" or what absolutes I will concede that I have to assume?
Paulginz 3 years ago
I'd rather talk about why constants are deistic, but anyway:
-The ability to distinguish one thing from the other:
Once you accept your senses and reality, you notice that you are not omnipotent, hence there is a "not you".
Creating classes of objects doesn't require any absolute (other than assuming the abstract entity "set").
If you give a specific example of a comparison where you use an absolute constant and can't think of any other way to do it, that would be very insightful to me.
Paulginz 3 years ago
lets use SPHERE as a constant. and compare a baseball and a football against it. which is more SPHERICAL? I find constants to be diestic because they are supernaturally assumed. it is the smallest act of circular reasoning that you could make. The are infinite and they are truthful. Never alter. The allow for meaning. they as necessary for daily interactions. without them, we would be reduced to... thoughtlessness, i think
qstephe 3 years ago
I think that in practice, in thought processes, the concept of "sphere" arises by comparing objects and noting similarities in shape, thus creating the abstract entity "The set (or abstract quality) of objects that apear to have the same shape from all directions".
No need to have the sphere as an a-priori constant.
You're still interchanging assumption and circular reasoning ;-).
A football is not a perfect sphere.+ If you deflate it, at what point does it cease to be a "sphere"? Seems fuzzy
Paulginz 3 years ago
"constructs of the human psyche which help us to think and understand the world." this describes my point about using a deist world view to support an atheist one. constants don't "help" in understanding. they are the prerequisite. they are necessary in order to observe the naturalistic world. footballs. yeah, they are pointy. so, compared to a baseball, they are LESS spherical. but neither are a perfect SPHERE.
assumptions are unproven. circular reasoning is question begging.
qstephe 3 years ago
"circular reasoning is question begging." True.
"assumptions are unproven." By definition. But they're necessary.
"they are the prerequisite. they are necessary in order to observe the naturalistic world."
Depends what you mean by "observe".
Does a videocamera observe?
I think that what troubles you is that even as I am discussing the nature of thought, assumptions, absolutes etc; I am clearly already making many assumptions just to be able to think. I see no solution to that though.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Videocameras capture and record differences in light and dark, but make no sense of those patterns of light and dark. no matter how effective of a tool they might be, it is still through the programming of a creator that they distinguish anything. If you go down this road you will lead to intelligent design, unfortunately.
qstephe 3 years ago
"If you go down this road you will lead to intelligent design, unfortunately."
Argument by analogy isn't logic ;-). Comparing reproducing life with inanimate objects fails completely at the creation vs evolution debate.
Ok. So by observe you mean see and make sense out of. Yes indeed, we need a whole bunch of concepts to observe things.
If you used "group" or "same" instead of shere, you would've at least got me to admit that I don't have a clue how these concepts arise in the human mind.
Paulginz 3 years ago
Well...
Actually I do have a plausible explanation that doesn't invoke an absolute notion of similarity (though it's compelling and simpler, I admit.).
The apparently intrinsic nature of the concept of similarity could be a direct consequence of the biological construction of the brain.
Remember. "Science can't explain X yet" is not evidence for god ;-).
Paulginz 3 years ago
I get the feeling that what I just wrote doesn't sound very convincing...
I should remind myself not to point out the parts I'm least able to explain when debating something ^_^.
However, I continue to insist that your worldview has the same problems.
To be able to assume "There is a god" you must first be able to have a concept of god.
I don't know how your concept of god works, but I guess it's mainly a list of atributes.
To make sense of "god is one" you need the concept of sets.