GOD: The Failed Hypothesis

[BikerBabe 0]

Chasteh, can you succinctly (and distinctly) state your personal position for those of use who aren't philosophy majors, as you apparently are? This is what we care about in SC, not esoteric definitions of philosophical terms.

I seriously cannot pin it down. What, EXACTLY are you arguing, here? All I see is someone playing "devil's advocate", and not necessarily on the underlying issue of the thread (faith, science, and the relative mutual exclusivity of the two). I see someone who is arguing about the methods of debate, which is probably a most fruitless endeavor here in SC, and more than a little nitpicky.

I am truly interested. from what i can assume (and we know what that does) you seem to be arguing against the OP's premise, though when i did that, you seemed to want to argue with me as well. Which is funny, since from your initial posts i got the impression we agreed.

It's really quite baffling. Are you actually a philosophy professor? Maddening. Quite maddening. But i'm just an engineer who has bad memories of philosophy 101, heh.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

There’s a high-ethics question, more of an intellectual/philosophical nature than pragmatic impact: if one’s behavior is based on the ultimate reward system (eternal life), how truly ethical is that behavior? If I need the threat of a powerful deity's wrath to hold me accountable, how much of my own personal responsibility is at play?

the whole post resonates with my thoughts. but a portion....

I'd had the same question, but I'd throw this out:

a rational person would, deep down, understand that the reward/punishment system is a myth, so therefore, the concept of this reward is really just the subconscious providing an external stimulus to be a decent person

so, therefore, the individual is truly acting from personal responsibility, not just acting in fear of the myth - even when they don't consciously realize it

I'll give credit to actions, which, in the end are always personal/individual choices, and leave the whole intent thing as a weak philosophical exercise.

in other words, I still with the pragmatic viewpoint for philosophical reasons as well

edit: one could argue that the individual is weak since they need subconscious motivation to be moral. One could also argue that the individual is exceptionally clever in that they provided themselves with a subconscious motivation to be moral. I suspect it varies from individual to individual.

personally? my moral motivation is recollection of my Dad kicking my ass if I didn't act morally stimulating a conditioned response well into my adulthood - one of the best techniques yet invented by mankind

Your answer is too long - you lose.

We are moral and altruistic because we evolved to be; they are beneficial traits. That is all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chasteh 0]

>Chasteh, can you succinctly (and distinctly) state your personal position for those of use who aren't philosophy majors, as you apparently are?

You mean, can I announce whether or not I myself am religious, or whether or not I am a pragmatist or a skeptic? Hah! I don't have to do such a thing to asses the problems with other perspectives.

>This is what we care about in SC, not esoteric definitions of philosophical terms.

I have removed quite a but of the "esoteric" terms from my posts. They are understandable for the person who has basic knowledge of philosophy or what "empirical" means. As an engineer, you should have little difficulty understanding the posts.

>I seriously cannot pin it down. What, EXACTLY are you arguing, here?

Post # 70.

>I see is someone playing "devil's advocate", and not necessarily on the underlying issue of the thread (faith, science, and the relative mutual exclusivity of the two)
Have you read any of my posts? There are at least three concerning mutual exclusivity. and its logical implications. Each other post is about the uncertainty that faith and science are dependent on.

>I see someone who is arguing about the methods of debate,
"can you argue this" or "can you argue that" are important features of religious and scientific statements.

>which is probably a most fruitless endeavor here in SC, and more than a little nitpicky.

Well thank you for your opinion of what you assume to be my goal.

>Which is funny, since from your initial posts i got the impression we agreed.

Bottom of post 70:
"BL:
Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions
Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to)

If you accept the bottom-line and do not attach yourself to Christianity nor necessarily to science, then we agree."
At that point there is enough said.

>It's really quite baffling. Are you actually a philosophy professor? Maddening.

Personal attack?

[BikerBabe 0]

not a PA...a blatant generalization to ALL philosophy professors and abstract discussions.

Apparently you missed the tone of my post, but OK.

so if science and faith are both "irrational" (apparently we DON'T agree, my mistake), then what human endeavor IS rational?

Or does rationality exist at all, according to you?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[chasteh 0]

>not a PA...a blatant generalization to ALL philosophy professors and abstract discussions.

Even abstract discussions that occur in all the math courses you took to become an engineer? Surely you don't mean to say abstract discussions and complex problems make for an invalid field of study.

>Apparently you missed the tone of my post, but OK

We don't quite agree, I don't think.

>so if science and faith are both "irrational" (apparently we DON'T agree, my mistake), then what human endeavor IS rational?

Logic. Math.

Sex. (Just kidding)

>Or does rationality exist at all, according to you?

Yes. Unfortunately for science and religion, they are subordinate to Logic. There are undeniable truths out there, but you cannot achieve them through religion and science alone. You need logical necessity.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Because the purpose of philosophy is to "know" or to find "truth" in everything. Science, being an empirical philosophy, seeks to find the truth in everything concerning the physical world. If it cannot obtain genuine facts that are indisputible and outside assumptions (like empirical assumptions) then it cannot obtain knowledge.

I'm not anti philosophy, it's just that your argument boils down to "ultimately we can't know anything" which is a revealation of neither use nor ornament. But the irony is that your philosophy (if true) must also apply to itself. And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Because the purpose of philosophy is to "know" or to find "truth" in everything. Science, being an empirical philosophy, seeks to find the truth in everything concerning the physical world. If it cannot obtain genuine facts that are indisputible and outside assumptions (like empirical assumptions) then it cannot obtain knowledge.

I'm not anti philosophy, it's just that your argument boils down to "ultimately we can't know anything" which is a revealation of neither use nor ornament. But the irony is that your philosophy (if true) must also apply to itself. And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic.

The more you learn, the less you know. You also get to a level where you realize nobody else does either...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[chasteh 0]

>I'm not anti philosophy, it's just that your argument boils down to "ultimately we can't know anything" which is a revealation of neither use nor ornament.

I have not said such a thing, either. Philosophers consider the purpose of their lives to disproving that often without science or religion.
Also, I have not adopted skepticism myself, but the skeptic does have a valid point: You can't "know" information in the empirical world (other than you "know" that you have sensory input, it is not possible for this to be otherwise) and you can't "know" that God exists given the inputs we have. You haven't summarized my argument well at all, Jack.

>But the irony is that your philosophy (if true) must also apply to itself. And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic.

False. I can know things that are necessarily true or false. Mathematical truths are an example.
Another example, from mathematics and Logic are necessary truths derived from no assumptions.
Derive: (A v ~A)
Assumptions: None.

A, having either the truth value T or F (True or False), makes A [or] notA , i.e. (A v ~A) , true. Because the statement says Either A or Not A. If A is true, then ~A is false, but Av~A is still true because only one disjunct is true. However, if ~A is true, making A false, that means that Av~A is still true, because one of its disjuncts, in this case ~A is true.

Therefore, we "KNOW" that the statement, whatever A symbolizes: (A v ~A) is undoubtedly true. Therefore, there are propositions that exist independent of the empirical world and assumptions that are necessarily true.

(In case you didn't get it, that means that "we can k now something." This negates your assumption of my argument: "We can't know anything" - which my premises do not entail)

In other words, You haven't made any headway against me nor logic nor philosophy. Shit.

>the irony is that your philosophy (if true) must also apply to itself

You're gonna have to do a better job of illustrating the contradiction that you say exists within "my philosophy," whatever that is.

>And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic
False, for the reasons above. You done yet?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The more you learn, the less you know. You also get to a level where you realize nobody else does either...

but that's not the issue, the issue is that once you get there, you are still arguing with people that don't know it themselves....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Morality is a human construct and does not require religion to exist.

{{{if it makes one self righteous, judgmental, and allows power structures to bloom that exploits people of faith}}}
Which I personally believe is the case far more than you're willing to admit.

a - Religion is a human construct and, in the best case, is equivalent to a moral code. If it works for someone, great, it if doesn't, one can find another construct to hang morality on. Why belittle the tools another individual uses if that's what it takes for it to work for them? Aren't you tolerant of another's life choices?

b - Noting that religion is used to exploit others is interesting, but it's naive to think that in the absense of religion, that some other structure wouldn't emerge to exploit the same in an even worse fashion (clubs, politics being the most equivalent to religion, IMO).

Fanaticism leading to exploitation, self righteousness, etc - is found in all areas, not just religion - and the fanatics are the ones I'm worried about most - be they religious nuts, enviro nuts, public health care, cheerleading moms, people that using tanning salons, etc.

as far as the judgmental/selfrighteous people - I find that a lot more with people with strong politics than I do with the religious people I know who tend to be quiet and personal about their beliefs. But it's all anecdotal and you run with a much more judgmental crowd, so I'd suspect you see more of the extremes than I would for all type - including the religious.

I'm good for people doing what works for them. Kind of like diets, they are all gimmicks, but if one helps you out - good for you. Until it crosses the line into the propogation of ignorance for the purposes of maintaining control. Such as a sticker in a text that urges exploration of Creationism as an alternative to evolution. Or a Grand Canyon guide telling Junior High students that God created the canyon roughly 400 years ago when He created Earth. And so on and so forth.

On the other points I'd agree that nutcases will find something to be nutty about, or violent about, or whatever; but it does not reduce my desire to see ignorant fanaticism reduced overall; regardless of the flavor or the vehicle.

Except for green beer on St Patrick's Day. There is a really stupid habit that I'm OK with. Mostly because it can't be done with any good beer, only with the piss-colored watered down flavorless crap.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

There’s a high-ethics question, more of an intellectual/philosophical nature than pragmatic impact: if one’s behavior is based on the ultimate reward system (eternal life), how truly ethical is that behavior? If I need the threat of a powerful deity's wrath to hold me accountable, how much of my own personal responsibility is at play?

the whole post resonates with my thoughts. but a portion....

I'd had the same question, but I'd throw this out:

a rational person would, deep down, understand that the reward/punishment system is a myth, so therefore, the concept of this reward is really just the subconscious providing an external stimulus to be a decent person

so, therefore, the individual is truly acting from personal responsibility, not just acting in fear of the myth - even when they don't consciously realize it

I'll give credit to actions, which, in the end are always personal/individual choices, and leave the whole intent thing as a weak philosophical exercise.

in other words, I still with the pragmatic viewpoint for philosophical reasons as well

edit: one could argue that the individual is weak since they need subconscious motivation to be moral. One could also argue that the individual is exceptionally clever in that they provided themselves with a subconscious motivation to be moral. I suspect it varies from individual to individual.

personally? my moral motivation is recollection of my Dad kicking my ass if I didn't act morally stimulating a conditioned response well into my adulthood - one of the best techniques yet invented by mankind

And ironic that it somewhat mirrors the foundations of religion. Fear of the tribal elders in life, evolving to fear of the tribal elders in death. People behaved (for the most part) because of fear that some long dead entity would punish them in life, then in death.

Ergo, your father is your God (in a way).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JackC 0]

Quote

You haven't summarized my argument well at all, Jack

Neither have you apparently.

Quote

False. I can know things that are necessarily true or false. Mathematical truths are an example.
Another example, from mathematics and Logic are necessary truths derived from no assumptions.
Derive: (A v ~A)
Assumptions: None.

Wrong. Mathematics and logic are both axiomatic systems and thereby fundamentally based on assumptions. Look up Gödel's incompleteness theorems for example.

You say that science can't "know" anything because it is based on the empirical universe and you can't know if that is real. This logic also applies to logic itself, since logic is also rooted in the empirical universe and you can't know if that is real.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Until it crosses the line into the propogation of ignorance for the purposes of maintaining control. Such as a sticker in a text that urges exploration of Creationism as an alternative to evolution. Or a Grand Canyon guide telling Junior High students that God created the canyon roughly 400 years ago when He created Earth. And so on and so forth.

I agree, but that's not the quiet religious types I'm talking about, that crosses the line.

I think abuse like that occurs at kids all the time and in other areas:

How about that Grand Canyong guide asking Junior how he thinks that bear feels about global warming - or teachers getting their kids to write letters to Congress asking for universal health care - or teachers getting kids to hand out literature for voting on school funding bills

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chasteh 0]

>thereby fundamentally based on assumptions

Yet I have just shown you how there is no assumption necessary to prove at least one type of statement as necessarily true. Shit.

>You say that science can't "know" anything because it is based on the empirical universe and you can't know if that is real.

True.

>This logic also applies to logic itself, since logic is also rooted in the empirical universe and you can't know if that is real.

False.
Logic is not rooted in the empirical universe. Neither is philosophy. The empirical universe only gives us the truth values with which to assign to propositions that we made independently of the empirical universe. Nice try.

Prove how logic is rooted in the empirical universe.
That ones gonna be tough for you.

[rehmwa 2]

Canyong?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Some good logic; but the flaw (not a logical one but a practical one) is that logic holds it's own regardless of content, and even with no content. Logic is the study of structure, and without any content is mental masturbation. (Kind of how math relates to physics). You can run equations until the cows come home, but they are meaningless until applied to something outside the world of mathematics.

So yes, you can prove that A or not A is a true statement. It's only purpose is to show that you can prove an abstract statement.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Until it crosses the line into the propogation of ignorance for the purposes of maintaining control. Such as a sticker in a text that urges exploration of Creationism as an alternative to evolution. Or a Grand Canyon guide telling Junior High students that God created the canyon roughly 400 years ago when He created Earth. And so on and so forth.

I agree, but that's not the quiet religious types I'm talking about, that crosses the line.

I think abuse like that occurs at kids all the time and in other areas:

How about that Grand Canyong guide asking Junior how he thinks that bear feels about global warming - or teachers getting their kids to write letters to Congress asking for universal health care - or teachers getting kids to hand out literature for voting on school funding bills

I think we should send the teacher to interview the bear; naked and with honwy smeareed all over their nakedness.

Also, I meant 4000 years. Sloppy me,

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Canyong?

Been eating a lot of Chinese Takee-Outee?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JackC 0]

Quote

>thereby fundamentally based on assumptions

Yet I have just shown you how there is no assumption necessary to prove at least one type of statement as necessarily true. Shit.

No you didn't. You just regurgitated one of the axioms.

Quote

Prove how logic is rooted in the empirical universe.
That ones gonna be tough for you.

Isn't your whole premise that you can't prove anything in the empirical universe?

[chasteh 0]

>Some good logic
mmm goood

>but the flaw (not a logical one but a practical one) is that logic holds it's own regardless of content, and even with no content.

Sure.

>Logic is the study of structure
mmm sort of. Logic has syntax and semantic properties.

>and without any content is mental masturbation
Right. Unfortunately for science and religion, propositions end up being subordinate to preserving truth. The mental "masturbation" is a necessary component to putting use to any empirical proposition, particularly when we are trying to claim that such a set of propositions are truth-functional or not.

>Kind of how math relates to physics

Nice.

>You can run equations until the cows come home, but they are meaningless until applied to something outside the world of mathematics.

Ok. Unfortunately, the necessity of a particular statement can be proven whereas the existence of the empirical world it purports to explain cannot be proven.

>So yes, you can prove that A or not A is a true statement. It's only purpose is to show that you can prove an abstract statement.

Hence, there are things provable within abstract reasoning that "exist" independent of a scientific method or religious dogmatism. Therefore, logic can indeed give us such a certainty, however evaluated, that does not exist in either science or religion.

[chasteh 0]

>No you didn't. You just regurgitated one of the axioms.

NUH UHHHHHH!!!!!
The statement is necessarily true.
Are you sure that is an axiom?
Perhaps you should read about theorems. Oops!

(edit:)
"The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical."


>Isn't your whole premise that you can't prove anything in the empirical universe?

If by "prove" you mean "make necessarily the case that you can be certain of such a proposition" then yes, that is what I mean.

You made the claim that logic is rooted in the empirical universe. Take a shot at it.

[BikerBabe 0]

all right.

new question for you chasteh.

If everything you say is 100% true (*poof* I am now an existentialist), then what - using your methods, or opinions, or beliefs, whatever - is the purpose of science and religion? WHY do they exist?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[chasteh 0]

>If everything you say is 100% true (*poof* I am now an existentialist), then what - using your methods, or opinions, or beliefs, whatever - is the purpose of science and religion? WHY do they exist?

If Everything I say is 100% true? I am a human, prone to error as the rest of us, however, there isn't that much room, if any, in what I have said in this thread.

>using your methods, or opinions, or beliefs, whatever - is the purpose of science and religion? WHY do they exist?

For the purposes of making the lives, whatever those may be, though not necessarily actual, easier.

[JackC 0]

Quote

You made the claim that logic is rooted in the empirical universe. Take a shot at it.

If logic were empirically shown to be wrong, would it be changed? If you answer no, logic can prove nothing of consequence. If you answer yes, logic is based on empiricism.

[chasteh 0]

>If logic were empirically shown to be wrong, would it be changed?

Has it?
Can it?
If logic were proven wrong, you could no longer use statements like "If...then" With any indication of truth-preservation. It would also make propositions rather worthless, as truth-values would no longer have bearing on anything. What would then be the purpose of scientific inquiry?
Looks like the empirical world isn't going to do much to dent logic. Crap.

>If you answer no, logic can prove nothing of consequence.

In that case, logic would be subordinate to science. Perhaps you could try doing this. You will have changed logic and science forever.

>If you answer yes, logic is based on empiricism.

Not necessarily. Logic would then have been shown to have a possible influence from empiricism. It does not, however, mean that logic is based on empiricism. Major difference.

Also, when are you going to show that logic is based on empiricism? When are you going to show that logic is even influenced by empiricism?

Cmon man! Lets fuckin roll.

Or float. I like boats too. And dolphins. Flips and shit.