Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

roosh · 22-12-2009 08:02PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one ever said it was. Indoctrination takes many forms

It may take many forms, but it's root cause is quite possibly the same.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by acceptable. People are free to believe whatever the hell they want, the problem only comes in when people want their personal subjective views to be given weight in public discourse. An example would be that in negotiations between Ireland and England, the belief that England (or Ireland) is self evidently superior has no place at the negotiating table.

Acceptable is meant in the sense where one person deems their own particular delusion to be allowable, while taking issue with another's. Where the consequences of ones own delusion are deemed, by the person themselves, as less harmful than the consequences of someone elses delusional belief.

It may be deemed delusional to believe that one country is indeed better than another, but that delusion is only a consequence of the primary delusion that either country exists in reality. If examined furhter, it becomes clear that belief that any country exists in reality, is delusional, as all countries are little more than concepts, that are widely accepted as being true, and defended as though they are reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Similarly, if you want to believe you have experienced god that's great for you but if you want someone else to take that claim seriously you're going to have to produce evidence. And saying that the experience of god does not lend itself to providing evidence and must be experienced does not negate that requirement

The issue is not necessarily whether or nor someone can verify [my] "claim", seeing as how no such claim has been made, rather assumed, but the acquisition of knowledge, and how one can acquire knowledge.

Also, the issue of the nature of that knowledge whether it be reality or information is up for debate.

We can explore how the existence of anything is not verifiable by evidence, but rather is entirely axiomatic, insofar as its existence can only be verified by the thing itself, through direct experience of it. The only evidence of reality, is reality itself.

We can also explore how "evidence" actually serves to deepend delusions, and keep from direct experience of reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. So really it's best not to go down the road of though police. What you deem delusional is not necessarily so either

We can rationally explore certain claims that are potentially delusional, and perhaps rule them in or out, and at the very worst potentially get a better understanding of reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. And the only way to do that is through research and repeatable experiments

and the only way to know that the results of those experiments are true is to do them for oneself. Otherwise, to accept someone elses findings is to believe on the basis of faith.

Sam Vimes · 22-12-2009 08:27PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

It may take many forms, but it's root cause is quite possibly the same.

Acceptable is meant in the sense where one person deems their own particular delusion to be allowable, while taking issue with another's. Where the consequences of ones own delusion are deemed, by the person themselves, as less harmful than the consequences of someone elses delusional belief.

It may be deemed delusional to believe that one country is indeed better than another, but that delusion is only a consequence of the primary delusion that either country exists in reality. If examined furhter, it becomes clear that belief that any country exists in reality, is delusional, as all countries are little more than concepts, that are widely accepted as being true, and defended as though they are reality.

The issue is not necessarily whether or nor someone can verify [my] "claim", seeing as how no such claim has been made, rather assumed, but the acquisition of knowledge, and how one can acquire knowledge.

Also, the issue of the nature of that knowledge whether it be reality or information is up for debate.

We can explore how the existence of anything is not verifiable by evidence, but rather is entirely axiomatic, insofar as its existence can only be verified by the thing itself, through direct experience of it. The only evidence of reality, is reality itself.

We can also explore how "evidence" actually serves to deepend delusions, and keep from direct experience of reality.

We can rationally explore certain claims that are potentially delusional, and perhaps rule them in or out, and at the very worst potentially get a better understanding of reality.

and the only way to know that the results of those experiments are true is to do them for oneself. Otherwise, to accept someone elses findings is to believe on the basis of faith.

Sorry mate you've gone back into the whole existential thing of personal experience being the bees knees as long as you're really really sure that you're right and I really have no interest in having that debate again

roosh · 22-12-2009 08:52PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry mate you've gone back into the whole existential thing of personal experience being the bees knees as long as you're really really sure that you're right and I really have no interest in having that debate again

The comments made were in direct response to your points. If the conversation was headed back in that direction, it wasn't me that was leading it that way. I have no problem re-iterating my view point, though.

The issue of delusions however is a separate point, that can be explored without reference to the need for repeatable experiment, which will lead us back to the issue of personal experience.

Instead we can look at how evidence can be provided to support a delusion, but how reality is axiomatic, and can only be known once delusions are dispelled.

For example, if one were asked to provide evidence to support their claim that the country of the USA exists, they could no doubt find ample evidence to support this claim.

However, the USA does not actually exist in reality, it is merely a concept that is widely accepted as being true and indeed is defended militarily. This concept itself has spawned an entire culture and a belief in the reality of the country that is little more than a collective delusion.

However, in order to prove that the USA does not exists as anything other than a concept, one cannot provide any "externally verifiable evidence".

This highlights the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence"

Sam Vimes · 23-12-2009 03:50AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue of delusions however is a separate point, that can be explored without reference to the need for repeatable experiment, which will lead us back to the issue of personal experience.

Instead we can look at how evidence can be provided to support a delusion, but how reality is axiomatic, and can only be known once delusions are dispelled.

For example, if one were asked to provide evidence to support their claim that the country of the USA exists, they could no doubt find ample evidence to support this claim.

However, the USA does not actually exist in reality, it is merely a concept that is widely accepted as being true and indeed is defended militarily. This concept itself has spawned an entire culture and a belief in the reality of the country that is little more than a collective delusion.

However, in order to prove that the USA does not exists as anything other than a concept, one cannot provide any "externally verifiable evidence".

This highlights the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence"

Yup, still flying in the face of everything we've learned since the dawn of reason and following a philosophy that would still have us living in caves. Sorry mate I'd have a mountain to climb to try to convince someone who thinks that looking at something once is better than testing the sh!t out of it in a million different ways as long as the person doing the looking thinks they're really great at looking at things, and I don't have the time to try to change someone's entire world view, especially one so at odds with reality

roosh · 23-12-2009 02:01PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yup, still flying in the face of everything we've learned since the dawn of reason and following a philosophy that would still have us living in caves. Sorry mate I'd have a mountain to climb to try to convince someone who thinks that looking at something once is better than testing the sh!t out of it in a million different ways as long as the person doing the looking thinks they're really great at looking at things, and I don't have the time to try to change someone's entire world view, especially one so at odds with reality

Not so much flying in the face of everything we've learned, rather being willing to question the assumptions of what we have been taught, or should I say what we have been indoctrinated into. If you deem some delusions as being acceptible to you, while others aren't then you are just as guilty of those you chastise.

As for climbing your mountain, I would suggest not accepting everything that you read, because you have faith in it, but rather question the basic assumptions upon which it is based, and find it out for yourself. When baisc reasoning highlights certain flaws, then don't discard your entire world view, but investigate it.

As for being at odds with reality, it may be at odds with your perception of reality or indeed a widely accepted and unquestioned perception of "reality", but perception of reality, and reality are two completely different things.

robindch · 23-12-2009 02:17PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

For example, if one were asked to provide evidence to support their claim that the country of the USA exists, they could no doubt find ample evidence to support this claim. However, the USA does not actually exist in reality, it is merely a concept that is widely accepted as being true and indeed is defended militarily.

That is one magnificent, textbook-level Category Error.

roosh · 23-12-2009 02:38PM

robindch wrote: »

That is one magnificent, textbook-level Category Error.

almost.

the same could be said of a country, except that a country is not defined by the buildings, people, banks, institutions that it contains, rather by its borders. A country may be empty of any such things, but still be classed as a country, purely by an agreement on where its imaginary borders lie, or where a "country" aggressively defends its "borders".

Sam Vimes · 23-12-2009 03:05PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

Not so much flying in the face of everything we've learned, rather being willing to question the assumptions of what we have been taught, or should I say what we have been indoctrinated into. If you deem some delusions as being acceptible to you, while others aren't then you are just as guilty of those you chastise.

Questioning assumptions is to be commended but honestly, you've gone way too far. Sometimes, just sometimes, something written down in a book might just be right and very very occasionally, someone can be totally sure that they experienced something and still be wrong.

robindch · 23-12-2009 03:09PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

almost. the same could be said of a country, except that a country is not defined by the buildings, people, banks, institutions that it contains, rather by its borders.

There's nothing "almost" about it

You're trying to apply the rules of physical reality in the domain of political or definitional reality.

That's really not going to work.

Zombrex · 23-12-2009 03:19PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

However, in order to prove that the USA does not exists as anything other than a concept, one cannot provide any "externally verifiable evidence".

This highlights the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence"

No it doesn't, it highlights the problem of proving a negative.

External verifiable evidence is great, but there is no point applying it to a question that is unanswerable.

BTW does someone want to fill me in on what the hell this thread is about now? :pac:

roosh · 23-12-2009 07:35PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Questioning assumptions is to be commended but honestly, you've gone way too far. Sometimes, just sometimes, something written down in a book might just be right and very very occasionally, someone can be totally sure that they experienced something and still be wrong.

I don't dispute that.

But in order to verify that the thing written in the book is right, one must verify it personally, otherwise one accepts it on the basis of faith or trust.

The issue may be due to the nature of experience. It seems to be assumed that the rationalisation of an experience is the same as the experience itself, which of course it isn't. The experience is independent of the rationalisation.

To use another example. I experience the digestion process every time I eat, but I could not give a rational explanation of it. I do not know what the scientific explanation of it is, and I don't need to know. I have experience of digestion that is completely objective, and I know how to digest, I know how to break down the food and take what I need from it and how to distribute it to the various parts of my body that need it. I cannot explain to you how I do it, but I do it, and I know how to do it.

This is just meant as an example to show how experience is not dependent on the mind for existence and therefore objective, not subjective.

roosh · 23-12-2009 07:51PM

robindch wrote: »

There's nothing "almost" about it

You're trying to apply the rules of physical reality in the domain of political or definitional reality.

That's really not going to work.

Just to clarify, I haven't seen the buildings of the country, seen the border patrol of the country, seen all the various things that make up the country, and then asked where is the country. I have said, I can show you all these things as evidence that the country exists, I can identify the country itself, but that does not mean that the country exists in reality.

A country is defined by its borders, and anything that falls within those borders is said to be "of" that country. However, whatever is said to be "of" that country is entirely dependent on its location within those borders.

The issue of course is that all borders are entirely imaginary, and do not exist in reality. Of course people may put up walls and fences, and they may deploy military personnel to defend and enforce this border, but what they are defending and enforcing is imaginary, and does not exist in reality.

Just a further point on reality, it is the state of things as they actually exist, so to talk about political reality and definitional reality, is not to talk about reality. Otherwise we can talk about religious reality.

roosh · 23-12-2009 07:57PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No it doesn't, it highlights the problem of proving a negative.

It highlights the fact that the only evidence for reality is reality itself, and that evidence of any form may very well be for something other than reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

External verifiable evidence is great, but there is no point applying it to a question that is unanswerable.

So what questions are deemed unanswerable, those that pertain the true nature of reality?

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW does someone want to fill me in on what the hell this thread is about now? :pac:

Still most annoying atheist arguments.

Morbert · 23-12-2009 08:35PM

Mangaroosh, you are conflating two issues. The issue of objectivity and subjectivity is separate to the issue of versimilitude.

Nobody is claiming scientific theories are necessarily true (I am effectively an instrumentalist.) but scientific theories are still objective, as their efficacy and descriptive power does not depend on who is involved. Again, I'll stress that human constructs are not necessarily subjective. "1+1=2" is a human construct, but the statement "1+1=2 follows from the properties of the real number line" was true before we ever crawled from the ocean.

roosh · 23-12-2009 09:11PM

Morbert wrote: »

Mangaroosh, you are conflating two issues. The issue of objectivity and subjectivity is separate to the issue of versimilitude.

Very much correct, although I'm not sure why it appears that I am conflating the two issues. If you could elaborate I can either agree or explain.

Morbert wrote: »

Nobody is claiming scientific theories are necessarily true (I am effectively an instrumentalist.) but scientific theories are still objective, as their efficacy and descriptive power does not depend on who is involved. Again, I'll stress that human constructs are not necessarily subjective. "1+1=2" is a human construct, but the statement "1+1=2 follows from the properties of the real number line" was true before we ever crawled from the ocean.

The confusion does seem to lie with the meaning of the words objective and subjective.

Any theory, because it is comprised of words, is subjective, because it depends entirely on the mind for existence. This is what the word means.

The theory itself is of course distinct from the thing which it describes. To use a previous example, Newton's description of Gravity is not the force of Gravity itself. Newton's description is not what holds planets in place or "makes things fall down". Just as a description of a cup is not a cup, one cannot use a description to drink out of.

The description i.e. the theory, is what is subjective, because the description is made up of words, symbols and perhaps images, which exist in the mind.

The experience of Gravity, as we are experiencing right now, is entirely objective.
while the experience of gravity is objective

Indeed, human constructs such as 1+1=2 are entirely subjective, not through any fault of their own, but because that is what the word means. As for 1+1=2 being true ever before we crawled out from the ocean, that is very much incorrect, seeing as how numbers only exist in our minds, and not in reality. We made them up, they are not necessarily inherent in reality, rather we have developed a system and applied it to reality.

Turtwig · 23-12-2009 09:25PM

..
Why didn't you just say that reality exists only in the mind 30 pages ago?
We only experience gravity through our minds so yeah it's subjective by your reasoning.
Objective experience are just impossible.
Sorry...

Morbert · 23-12-2009 09:45PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

Very much correct, although I'm not sure why it appears that I am conflating the two issues. If you could elaborate I can either agree or explain.

The confusion does seem to lie with the meaning of the words objective and subjective.

Any theory, because it is comprised of words, is subjective, because it depends entirely on the mind for existence. This is what the word means.

The theory itself is of course distinct from the thing which it describes. To use a previous example, Newton's description of Gravity is not the force of Gravity itself. Newton's description is not what holds planets in place or "makes things fall down". Just as a description of a cup is not a cup, one cannot use a description to drink out of.

The description i.e. the theory, is what is subjective, because the description is made up of words, symbols and perhaps images, which exist in the mind.

The experience of Gravity, as we are experiencing right now, is entirely objective. while the experience of gravity is objective

I'm not sure if that last paragraph was a typo or not so I'll leave that for now.

What I mean by conflating the two issues: I doubt anyone here would claim scientific theories are 'true' by the impeccably rigorous definition used by, say, philosophers and mathematicians. But scientific theories can still be considered objective, as their descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject. As mentioned before, an alien that experiences gravity as colours, or electromagnetic waves as falling, could still employ our scientific theories of electromagnetism and general relativity to make predictions. He could do this despite the fact that his subjective experiences are different to our own, and despite the fact that the mathematical language of electromagnetism and relativity are human constructs. This is what people mean when they say science is objective.

I'm all for nihilism. I have said many times on this forum that I think even solipsists are making assumptions when they say "I think therefore I am". So I'm all with you in terms of the "reality of scientific theories". But I still hold that they are not subjective.

Indeed, human constructs such as 1+1=2 are entirely subjective, not through any fault of their own, but because that is what the word means. As for 1+1=2 being true ever before we crawled out from the ocean, that is very much incorrect, seeing as how numbers only exist in our minds, and not in reality. We made them up, they are not necessarily inherent in reality, rather we have developed a system and applied it to reality.

Remember, though that I never claimed "1+1=2" was true before we called from the ocean. I said "1+1=2 follows from the axioms of the real number system". 1+1=2 will follow from the real number system whether you are a human, or an alien, or a dog, or a rock. It is this "platonic objectivity" which allows us to all consistently apply mathematics to descriptions of phenomena. You can happily construct a consistent number ring where 1+1=0=1, but that will not be the real number system.

And now, to lighten the mood:

roosh · 23-12-2009 10:01PM

Malty_T wrote: »

..
Why didn't you just say that reality exists only in the mind 30 pages ago?
We only experience gravity through our minds so yeah it's subjective by your reasoning.
Objective experience are just impossible.
Sorry...

Because I would have been misrepresenting myself. Reality does not exist in the mind.

I would question the notion that we only experience gravity through our minds.

If of coure reality does exist in the mind, then does that mean that anything that exists in the mind is reality?

roosh · 23-12-2009 10:35PM

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not sure if that last paragraph was a typo or not so I'll leave that for now.

What I mean by conflating the two issues: I doubt anyone here would claim scientific theories are 'true' by the impeccably rigorous definition used by, say, philosophers and mathematicians. But scientific theories can still be considered objective, as their descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject.

The issue is not whether a scientific theory is true or not, rather whether personal experience is objective or subjective, and whether or not science is dependent on personal experience.

Indeed, something can be subjective and still be true, as long as it confroms to reality.

As for scientific theories being objective, they could be considered objective if the above was what the word subjective actually meant, but the word subjective doesn't mean that descriptions and predictions are dependent on the subject.

The word subjective means:

OED Online definition of Subjective
• adjective 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence. 3 [SIZE=-1]Grammar[/SIZE] relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

But even if the definition of subjectivity were "descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject", it is questionable how descriptions and predictions would not be dependent on the subject, they are describing and predicting. Unless there is a different interpretation of the word subject.

Morbert wrote: »

As mentioned before, an alien that experiences gravity as colours, or electromagnetic waves as falling, could still employ our scientific theories of electromagnetism and general relativity to make predictions. He could do this despite the fact that his subjective experiences are different to our own, and despite the fact that the mathematical language of electromagnetism and relativity are human constructs.

That is based on the assumption that this alien could understand our language and our symbols. If the alien could understand our language and symbols then perhaps they might, but if they couldn't then it is highly unlikely they could.

We don't need to hypothesise imaginary alien beings however, we can simply refer to erathbound creatures and ask if the other animals on this planet can use our theories to make predictions. So far, there is nothing to suggest that they could.

Morbert wrote: »

This is what people mean when they say science is objective.

If this is what they mean, then they don't understand what objective means.

If I were to give the same example of the alien above and say "that is what I mean when I say that science is onomatopoeic.

The word onomatopoeic however does not mean that, and it us clear that I have misunderstood what the word means.

What is described above sounds more like the word "usable"

Morbert wrote: »

I'm all for nihilism. I have said many times on this forum that I think even solipsists are making assumptions when they say "I think therefore I am". So I'm all with you in terms of the "reality of scientific theories". But I still hold that they are not subjective.

The definition of the word "subjective" would suggest that they are, by definition subjective, whether you or I think so or not.

Morbert wrote: »

Remember, though that I never claimed "1+1=2" was true before we called from the ocean. I said "1+1=2 follows from the axioms of the real number system".

My apologies for that, but remember that "the real number system" is entirely subjective, and does not exist in reality.

Morbert wrote: »

1+1=2 will follow from the real number system whether you are a human, or an alien, or a dog, or a rock.

No, it will only follow if you are human and you understand the concepts of 1, +, =, and 2.

Morbert wrote: »

It is this "platonic objectivity" which allows us to all consistently apply mathematics to descriptions of phenomena. You can happily construct a consistent number ring where 1+1=0=1, but that will not be the real number system.

Exactly, we apply mathematics to the descriptions of phenomena, it exists only in the human mind.

Morbert wrote: »

And now, to lighten the mood:

damn it, I'll have to admit that that went over my head. anyone explain because I'm sure it was good.

Morbert · 23-12-2009 11:52PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue is not whether a scientific theory is true or not, rather whether personal experience is objective or subjective, and whether or not science is dependent on personal experience.

Indeed, something can be subjective and still be true, as long as it confroms to reality.

As for scientific theories being objective, they could be considered objective if the above was what the word subjective actually meant, but the word subjective doesn't mean that descriptions and predictions are dependent on the subject.

The word subjective means:

OED Online definition of Subjective
• adjective 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence. 3 [SIZE=-1]Grammar[/SIZE] relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

But even if the definition of subjectivity were "descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject", it is questionable how descriptions and predictions would not be dependent on the subject, they are describing and predicting. Unless there is a different interpretation of the word subject.

Remember that we're not talking about the existence or 'Necessary Truth' of things. Science is instead concerned with the efficacy of descriptions and frameworks, and how instrumental they are. My research requires the use of quantum mechanical wavefunctions, but I would never claim they are "real". Versimilitude can be left to the philosophers, as scientific theories do not depend on being "real" to work.

For (another) example, the "existence" of the language of electromagnetism (fields and vector calculus) depends on the mind, so their "existence" would be subjective. But the instrumentalism of these vector fields is not subjective. If all of life disappeared tomorrow, electromagnetism would still accurately describe the behaviour of magnets,even though the language of electromagentism (or even the idea of a magnet itself) would no longer "exist"/"be experienced".

That is based on the assumption that this alien could understand our language and our symbols. If the alien could understand our language and symbols then perhaps they might, but if they couldn't then it is highly unlikely they could.

We don't need to hypothesise imaginary alien beings however, we can simply refer to erathbound creatures and ask if the other animals on this planet can use our theories to make predictions. So far, there is nothing to suggest that they could.

Well the symbols and language themselves aren't important. Electromagnetism was initially described using a horrible bunch of differential equations. It was re-written in the language of vectors, and again in the language of special relativity. It's still the same theory regardless of the symbols or maths you use.

If this is what they mean, then they don't understand what objective means.

If I were to give the same example of the alien above and say "that is what I mean when I say that science is onomatopoeic.

The word onomatopoeic however does not mean that, and it us clear that I have misunderstood what the word means.

What is described above sounds more like the word "usable"

Well this is a little off topic but:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aobjective&meta=&rlz=1R2GGIT_en&aq=f&oq=

All of these definitions (bar the specific ones related to military and whatnot) conform to our use of the word objective. So your comparison isn't really appropriate.

But even using your definition of objective, scientific theories have a strong objectivity.

My apologies for that, but remember that "the real number system" is entirely subjective, and does not exist in reality.

But I never said anything about the existence of the real number system. I am only talking about what follows from it.

No, it will only follow if you are human and you understand the concepts of 1, +, =, and 2.

It followed before we existed. It is "platonic".

<snipped the rest to stop us from going in circles.

PS: It's just a joke about how the assumptions of logical positivists (in this case the girl) aren't necessarily appropriate or true.

Zombrex · 24-12-2009 12:11AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

It highlights the fact that the only evidence for reality is reality itself, and that evidence of any form may very well be for something other than reality.

But that doesn't mean very much. It is like in science where they say there is no proof of anything, only varying degrees of accuracy.

I haven't been following this thread in a while, but I get the feeling you are trying to explain in a very convoluted way what the rest of us already know and accept.

I'm not sure if you made this argument or not, but the problem with the idea that all experience is ultimately subjective is when people then start using that as a reason to believe any explanation for something that happened to them (ie It was God!)

All experience is subjective but that doesn't mean that all explanations for phenomena are equally valid

You said you experience your digestive process. You don't. You experience eating, and after that you don't experience anything else bar the odd feeling in your stomach.

The idea that you are digesting food is an explanation (a model or theory) for what is happening in your body when you eat food.

You accept that explanation as being the most plausible because biologists can support the theory. You never know 100% that this is what happens to your food, but you accept the theory because it has the most support, it explains the most things and appears to do this accurately.

Another explanation for what happens to your food is that fairies eat it in your stomach. That certainly explains what you experience. But does it have support? Not really. We can't make further predictions about how fairies operate, so we can't test this explanation beyond that it explains why where your food is gone.

This is the problem with people using "I was talking to God" as an explanation for what they experience. It is a very bad explanation because they can't determine at all if it is a better explanation than any other explanation.

mangaroosh wrote: »

So what questions are deemed unanswerable, those that pertain the true nature of reality?

Well a good example is the question "Does God not exist?" is unanswerable because by definition it is not possible to determine if a supernatural all powerful deity doesn't exist. You cannot tell the difference between a universe with out God (or the Flying Spigettie Monster) and a universe where God is simply not revealing himself at that particular moment.

Because the two are indistingusable you cannot answer that question.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Still most annoying atheist arguments.

Which argument specifically?

roosh · 24-12-2009 12:30AM

Morbert wrote: »

Remember that we're not talking about the existence or 'Necessary Truth' of things.

The overall discussion is centred around the existence of God

Morbert wrote: »

Science is instead concerned with the efficacy of descriptions and frameworks, and how instrumental they are. My research requires the use of quantum mechanical wavefunctions, but I would never claim they are "real". Versimilitude can be left to the philosophers, as scientific theories do not depend on being "real" to work.

we are perhaps at cross-purposes, as the discussion is not so much about science and what it does or doesn't do, rather the objectivity of personal experience, with regard to experiencing reality and therefore having knowledge of it.

Morbert wrote: »

For (another) example, the "existence" of the language of electromagnetism (fields and vector calculus) depends on the mind, so their "existence" would be subjective. But the instrumentalism of these vector fields is not subjective.

It is the langugage that is subjective not electromagnetism.

Morbert wrote: »

If all of life disappeared tomorrow, electromagnetism would still accurately describe the behaviour of magnets,even though the language of electromagentism (or even the idea of a magnet itself) would no longer "exist"/"be experienced".

If all of life ceased to exist tomorrow, then what is described by the term electromagnetism would continue to exist, correct, however, "electromagnetism" would not describe anything as there would be no one to use the term or even to describe the force of electromagnetism. It would simply exist without the need to be explained.

Morbert wrote: »

Well the symbols and language themselves aren't important. Electromagnetism was initially described using a horrible bunch of differential equations. It was re-written in the language of vectors, and again in the language of special relativity. It's still the same theory regardless of the symbols or maths you use.

And regardless of the symbols or the langauge, the description is still subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

Well this is a little off topic but:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aobjective&meta=&rlz=1R2GGIT_en&aq=f&oq=

All of these definitions (bar the specific ones related to military and whatnot) conform to our use of the word objective. So your comparison isn't really appropriate.

be careful what sources you use. If one is looking for a reliable source on the definition of a word, then the Oxford English Dictionary is the authourity.

Morbert wrote: »

But even using your definition of objective, scientific theories have a strong objectivity.

It isn't my definition, it is the OED definition of Objective. Using this definition, no scientific theory is objective.

Morbert wrote: »

But I never said anything about the existence of the real number system. I am only talking about what follows from it.

OK, I'm not sure I got the point being made, but it must be remembered that anything that follows from it, equally does not exist in reality.

Morbert wrote: »

It followed before we existed. It is "platonic".

If this is still with reference to the real number system, then I don't see how it could have followed before we existed, as it was mankind that brought it into "existence".

Morbert wrote: »

<snipped the rest to stop us from going in circles.

PS: It's just a joke about how the assumptions of logical positivists (in this case the girl) aren't necessarily appropriate or true.

cool, cheers for the explanation.

roosh · 24-12-2009 01:30AM

Wicknight wrote: »

But that doesn't mean very much. It is like in science where they say there is no proof of anything, only varying degrees of accuracy.

The point was to highlight the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence" when it comes to reality. It is possible to show evidence for the existence of a country, that would support that hypothesis that a country exists.

However, when examined, it becomes clear that countries do not exist in reality, their borders [which define them] are merely agreed upon (although often disputed) and accepted as a matter of consensus. These borders are then defended as though they are real, and our entire way of life operates on the basis that they do exist, economies are based on them being real, wars are fought over them, and economies operate on the basis that they are real, with the very real division of wealth and poverty being a direct consequence.

Yest despite this mountain of evidence, the fact remain, that countries only exist in our minds, as the borders are completely imaginary. So the reality of the situation is that countries do not actually exist in reality, so how can evidence be provided to support this fact of reality?

Apparently it cannot. This would suggest that one cannot provide evidence for reality, rather one must do away with delusions firstly, before one can know reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread in a while, but I get the feeling you are trying to explain in a very convoluted way what the rest of us already know and accept.

I'm not sure if you made this argument or not, but the problem with the idea that all experience is ultimately subjective is when people then start using that as a reason to believe any explanation for something that happened to them (ie It was God!)

All experience is subjective but that doesn't mean that all explanations for phenomena are equally valid

Again, the meaning of the word Subjective must be clarified to ensure that we are not at cross-purposes. The word subjective literally means "dependent on the mind for existence". Now, not all experience is dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore is not necessarily subjective.

It may perhaps be useful to discuss the nature of mind, when discussing this issue, but that may not be necessary at this juncture.

If by subjective, you mean personal (as many seem to do), in the sense that everything a person does is subjective, then it must be pointed out, that this is not what the word subjective actually means.

A person can experience something, that is not dependent on their mind for existence - childbirth is not merely dependent on the mind for existence - and this is therefore objective. That is not to say that they will not rationalise that experience. Indeed any rationalisation of it, and attempted explanation of it, is very much subjective. Again, however, the rationalisation of the experience, is not the experience itself.

Wicknight wrote: »

You said you experience your digestive process. You don't. You experience eating, and after that you don't experience anything else bar the odd feeling in your stomach.

I must correct you, I, and indeed anyone else who eats, most definitely does experience the digestive process. I experience eating, and then I experience digestion. My conscious mind may not be able to tell you when things are happening, but I am not simply my conscious mind.

Again, the nature of mind and who it is that experiences things may be a fruitful discussion.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that you are digesting food is an explanation (a model or theory) for what is happening in your body when you eat food.

Indeed, and the explanation of the Krebs Cycle is subjective, however, I am not familiar with it, nor do I need to be in order to experience what is referred to as, the digestive process.

Wicknight wrote: »

You accept that explanation as being the most plausible because biologists can support the theory. You never know 100% that this is what happens to your food, but you accept the theory because it has the most support, it explains the most things and appears to do this accurately.

Apologies for breaking this up into numerous parts, but I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not familiar with the scientific explanation/description of what is referred to as the Digestive process or the Krebs Cycle. I am aware that these explanations "exist", however I do not know them, nor do I need to, in order to experience what it is that they describe.

Wicknight wrote: »

Another explanation for what happens to your food is that fairies eat it in your stomach. That certainly explains what you experience. But does it have support? Not really. We can't make further predictions about how fairies operate, so we can't test this explanation beyond that it explains why where your food is gone.

Any explanation is subjective, but it is not necessary to know them, in order to experience what they refer to. If the description is incorrect, then it simply means that the experience has not been explained accurately.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the problem with people using "I was talking to God" as an explanation for what they experience. It is a very bad explanation because they can't determine at all if it is a better explanation than any other explanation.

Indeed, I would very much agree. "Talking to God" is very much misleading, as it implies a two-way conversation where one hears "the voice of God", and where the "voice of God" communicates using words. The interpretation of words is itself entirely subjective.

However, the fact that someone innacurately describes something, which cannot be described using words, it does not mean that what they experienced was incorrect, rather their rationalisation of it is not accurate.

To illustrate this point, ask a woman to describe what it is like to give birth. See if she conveys it in such a way that leaves you in no doubt that you know exactly what it is like to give birth.

Equally, try to explain to her what it is like to get a kicked in the crotch, and see if you can leave here in no doubt as to what it is like.

These examples are meant to highlight the difficulty of rationalising an experience in a manner that the nature of the experience is communicated.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well a good example is the question "Does God not exist?" is unanswerable because by definition it is not possible to determine if a supernatural all powerful deity doesn't exist. You cannot tell the difference between a universe with out God (or the Flying Spigettie Monster) and a universe where God is simply not revealing himself at that particular moment.

OK, I will put the point back in it's original context, but first just to answer the above. While it may not be possible to "ell the difference between a universe with out God (or the Flying Spigettie Monster) and a universe where God is simply not revealing himself at that particular moment", it may also be a simple case that what God actually is, is not fully understood, and that if God were understood then evidence would be readily "visible".

To oversimplify for the sake of explanation. A person may be looking out at an airport terminal and say that there is no evidence of any planes, but that may be becaues they do not know what a plane is.

If they subsequently gain an understanding of what a plane actually is and they go back to the airport, they would then see planes everywhere.

Unfortunately God doesn't quite take the guise of a plane, but that is just meant to highlight how our understanding can affect our perception of evidnece. And, so long as someone is looking for evidence of an old guy sitting on a cloud somewhere, they definitiely will not find any evidence.

Just to refere back to the original context of the point though, it was the issue of "externally verifiable evidence" being provided for reality. We had the case where we can provide evidence for a country, yet the country does not exist in reality. How do we show the reality of the situation with evidence?

We can't, there is no piece of evidence that we can bring that will highlight reality, the person must either experience it or reason it for themselves. In this case, reality is only revealed once the delusion is done away with. This suggests that in order to know reality, one must do away with delusions.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which argument specifically?

It was the argument against personal experience as a source of knowledge

Sam Vimes · 24-12-2009 02:10AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread in a while, but I get the feeling you are trying to explain in a very convoluted way what the rest of us already know and accept.

I'm not sure if you made this argument or not, but the problem with the idea that all experience is ultimately subjective is when people then start using that as a reason to believe any explanation for something that happened to them (ie It was God!)

All experience is subjective but that doesn't mean that all explanations for phenomena are equally valid

That's not exactly what he's saying. He's basically trying to rubbish the idea of evidence in favour of personal experience which allows you to "know" things as long as you think your senses are infallible and if you're 100% sure there have been no conscious or subconscious errors in interpretation. How one is supposed to do this remains to be seen

Zombrex · 24-12-2009 02:26AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

The point was to highlight the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence" when it comes to reality. It is possible to show evidence for the existence of a country, that would support that hypothesis that a country exists.

However, when examined, it becomes clear that countries do not exist in reality, their borders [which define them] are merely agreed upon (although often disputed) and accepted as a matter of consensus. These borders are then defended as though they are real, and our entire way of life operates on the basis that they do exist, economies are based on them being real, wars are fought over them, and economies operate on the basis that they are real, with the very real division of wealth and poverty being a direct consequence.

But who thinks countries actually exist as subsets of reality? I've never heard anyone claim that.

Countries are abstract concepts. They don't exist as a subset of reality. When people say "America exists" what they mean is that there exists people who consider America to be a country defined based on these criteria.

As Robin points out this is not highlighting the problem with externally verifiable evidence, it is merely highlighting a problem with classification. You are using two different definitions of "real" as if they were interchangable, when they aren't.

A much better example of the problem with external evidence would be something like the observer effect in quantum physics. The act of measuring an atomic particle like an electron or a photon alters the properties of what you are observing. You cannot ever know the full set of properties were before you measured them and thus this knowledge is unknowable.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Yest despite this mountain of evidence, the fact remain, that countries only exist in our minds, as the borders are completely imaginary.

I've never seen any evidence that countries exist anywhere else but in our minds. Countries are abstract concepts defined based on the criteria determined by consensus of the humans making such decisions and only exists as an abstract concept. There is no evidence suggesting otherwise?

I have not been following this thread but has anyone suggested otherwise?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Apparently it cannot. This would suggest that one cannot provide evidence for reality, rather one must do away with delusions firstly, before one can know reality.

No, people can provide evidence in support of a conceptual model of reality (in science known as a theory). No one can know if their model of reality is actually a 100% accurate representation of reality. But you can test your model against observations in reality to see if your model at least predicts some aspects of observed reality.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, the meaning of the word Subjective must be clarified to ensure that we are not at cross-purposes. The word subjective literally means "dependent on the mind for existence". Now, not all experience is dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore is not necessarily subjective.

I cannot think of any experience that is not dependent on the mind for existence (how do you experience something without using your mind?)

mangaroosh wrote: »

A person can experience something, that is not dependent on their mind for existence - childbirth is not merely dependent on the mind for existence - and this is therefore objective.

You cannot experience childbirth without experiencing it through the processing of external sensor information through your brain, and as such is like all experience, subjective. The way your brain processes the sensor information will effect how you experience it.

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is not to say that they will not rationalise that experience. Indeed any rationalisation of it, and attempted explanation of it, is very much subjective. Again, however, the rationalisation of the experience, is not the experience itself.

No but the experience itself is unknowable. You cannot experience childbirth, or anything else for that matter, without your brain filtering the sensory information.

mangaroosh wrote: »

I must correct you, I, and indeed anyone else who eats, most definitely does experience the digestive process. I experience eating, and then I experience digestion.

No you don't. You experience the sensory experience of eating. It is the biological model presented to you by scientists that explains to you that what is happening is that your food is being digested. You food could be being eaten by fairies.

This is why most people 500 years ago didn't have a clue what was happening to their food after it disappeared into their throat.

"Food digestion" is a theory, a model, of what is happening that is used to explain the observed phenomena.

mangaroosh wrote: »

My conscious mind may not be able to tell you when things are happening, but I am not simply my conscious mind.

Your experience are. Your stomach does not "experience" food digestion as your stomach does not have the capacity to process and story information (which is what experience means). Your mind does.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, and the explanation of the Krebs Cycle is subjective, however, I am not familiar with it, nor do I need to be in order to experience what is referred to as, the digestive process.

But you would have no idea what the "digestive process" is unless this knowledge was explained to you (as it probably was when you were a child or teenager).

Which again is why people didn't have a clue what was happening to their food a few hundred years ago.

The digestive process is a theory, a theoretical model explaining the observed phenomena, including the sensory perceptions that make up your experience (experience is the recording and and processing of sensory data by the brain)

mangaroosh wrote: »

Apologies for breaking this up into numerous parts, but I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not familiar with the scientific explanation/description of what is referred to as the Digestive process or the Krebs Cycle.

Well given that you used the term "digestion" a number of times you apparently are aware of it.

mangaroosh wrote: »

I am aware that these explanations "exist", however I do not know them, nor do I need to, in order to experience what it is that they describe.

No but without them you have no explanation for what you experience. You simple have a series of unexplained sensory inputs. You can't say you know you experience digestion unless you know that what you are experiencing is digestion, as opposed to say a heart attack.

mangaroosh wrote: »

However, the fact that someone innacurately describes something, which cannot be described using words, it does not mean that what they experienced was incorrect, rather their rationalisation of it is not accurate.

No, but again without an explanation for the experience you just have a set of sensory inputs. Someone cannot say they experiences talking to God, any more than you can say you experienced digestion. Both these things are explanations, models explaining the sensory input. They explain the sensory input (the experience) they are not the experience itself.

The experience itself would be something along the lines of "sensory situmation from front of mouth. Sensory situmation from back of throat. Sensory stimulation from throat. Sensory stimulation from stomach area"

"Digestion" explains these. "Talking to God" explains the sensory record of a person having the experience people typically associate with talking to God. The question then becomes how accurate is that explanation, how accurate is that model at explaining the experience. Turns out not very...

mangaroosh wrote: »

These examples are meant to highlight the difficulty of rationalising an experience in a manner that the nature of the experience is communicated.

You don't need to highlight that, such a difficulty is the whole reason science exists.

Personal assessment of what is happening during an experience (ie going from Sensory stimulation in the mouth to the explanation that the food is causing your taste buds to under go a chemical reaction) are notoriously unreliable.

People are very bad at determining the explanation for their own experiences.

mangaroosh wrote: »

it may also be a simple case that what God actually is, is not fully understood, and that if God were understood then evidence would be readily "visible".

Not under any definition of God I'm aware of. How do you understand a being that has unlimited abilities.

Most theists seem to think that you understand him because he tells you what he is like. But that is logically flawed because he could just be lying. We lack the capacity to test if he is lying or not, in the same way we lack the capacity to test if he doesn't exist, since we have nothing to compare with. What does a God that lies appear like? What does a God that doesn't lie look like? We have no idea and since God is all powerful and we aren't we never will.

mangaroosh wrote: »

A person may be looking out at an airport terminal and say that there is no evidence of any planes, but that may be becaues they do not know what a plane is.

If they subsequently gain an understanding of what a plane actually is and they go back to the airport, they would then see planes everywhere.

True but what if a "plane" could also be a "car". The person goes back and looks at the airport. He sees lots of things on the runway. Are they planes or are they cars. He can't tell because he doesn't know the difference, nor can he tell the difference.

He can say there is something there, but he can't determine what it is because it can be both a car or a plane. With God expand that to the infinite. God can be anything he wants to be. So how do we determine that? For all we know my bed is God. How do I determine my bed is or isn't God given that God has the ability to be my bed if he so wishes?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Unfortunately God doesn't quite take the guise of a plane

But that is the point, God takes the guise of anything he wants. God can look like a universe where he doesn't exist. God can look like a bed. God can look like a cat.

We cannot compare God being a bed to just a regular bed because we do not have the ability test that. What does God being a bed look like? What does a universe without a God look like? What does a universe with a God look like. What are the differences?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just to refere back to the original context of the point though, it was the issue of "externally verifiable evidence" being provided for reality. We had the case where we can provide evidence for a country, yet the country does not exist in reality. How do we show the reality of the situation with evidence?

That is a terrible example because no one thinks a "country" is a concept that should exist in reality in the first place.

A much better expample is a door. What is the externally verifiable evidence that a door exists. Well you chuck something at it and see if the thing lands on the other side of the door. Then you mate Bob does the same thing. Compare your results. Come up with a model explaining your results and then send both your model and your results to someone on the other side of the world and see if they too manage to get your model to predict the results.

Goduznt Xzst · 24-12-2009 02:50AM

Morbert wrote: »

Morbert wrote: »

PS: It's just a joke about how the assumptions of logical positivists (in this case the girl) aren't necessarily appropriate or true.

I don't really want to wade in on this, but, mmm... I think you are missing the punchline of this joke... completely

Yes logical positivism is relevant, but only to the point that he knows, under its tenets, without observational evidence (ergo the lack of any browser history) the fact he was looking at porn the night before can never be ascertained.

Galvasean · 24-12-2009 04:11AM

Morbert wrote: »

Kudos. I love a good Darkplace reference.

Sam Vimes · 24-12-2009 10:32AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

we are perhaps at cross-purposes, as the discussion is not so much about science and what it does or doesn't do, rather the objectivity of personal experience, with regard to experiencing reality and therefore having knowledge of it.

I'm going to try to cut this massive debate down to the above main point. You contend that personal experience is objective and it's just the interpretation that's subjective. So:

How do you reconcile objective senses with the imperfection of evolution? Everyone's senses are different, for example how I'm colour blind or people can hear different frequencies or how there is a whole spectrum of light and sound that we are incapable of perceiving. And that's just the obvious flaws, our senses are adapted by blind and unintelligent process so how can you be so sure that what they perceive is objective?
Ask anyone in insurance and they will tell you that if you ask 5 eye witnesses what happened you'll get 5 different stories. How does one tell the difference between "knowing" something and only thinking you know it?

Please try to keep your answers as brief as possible and I'd prefer if you avoided analogies please

Morbert · 24-12-2009 02:11PM

I think I've spotted the problem here

mangaroosh wrote: »

The overall discussion is centred around the existence of God

we are perhaps at cross-purposes, as the discussion is not so much about science and what it does or doesn't do, rather the objectivity of personal experience, with regard to experiencing reality and therefore having knowledge of it.

It is the langugage that is subjective not electromagnetism.

Perhaps if I understood your overall contention relating to the exitence of God then I would better understand what you are trying to say.

What I am saying is personal experiences are subjective, as they are related to the person doing the experiencing. What scientists do is consider multiple experiences from multiple people to ascertain those qualitites that do not vary with respect to the person doing the experiencing. This removes the "personal" dependencies of scientific theories. So we can say that a scientific theory is a description shared by everyone. "Icecream tastes nice" is true for some people. Electromagnetism is true for everyone.

Now, you seem to be saying that, on another level, scientific theories are still subjective as we have no way of knowing if they truly correspond to a mind-independent reality. I mostly agree with this, and I doubt anyone else disagrees. But when we say subjective, we are using the more common definition

"1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

And science is not subjective by this definition. Science is considered more reliable than personal experience because of this.

be careful what sources you use. If one is looking for a reliable source on the definition of a word, then the Oxford English Dictionary is the authourity.

That would be a big mistake. The greatest virtue of the english language is that no dictionary is an authority. They are purely descriptive and not prescriptive. But either way, to quote my unabridged Third New International Webster Dictionary:

Subjective: In relating to, or being in experience or knowledge conditioned merely by personal characteristics of the mind or by particular states of mind as opposed to what is determined only by the universal condition of human experience and knowledge
Arising from within or belonging strictly to the individual.

Under the same entry, it defines Kantian subjectivism as "being of, related to, or determined by the mind."

We all seem to be using the more common first definition, and you seem to be using a more specific kantian definition, which leads me to my next question: Assuming we accept that scientific theories are subjective in a very specific Kantian sense, how is that related to the existence of God?

I don't really want to wade in on this, but, mmm... I think you are missing the punchline of this joke... completely

Yes logical positivism is relevant, but only to the point that he knows, under its tenets, without observational evidence (ergo the lack of any browser history) the fact he was looking at porn the night before can never be ascertained.

Is this joke from a book or something? I only inferred the irony of no evidence for research into logical positivism. I'm not sure how looking at porn was implied.

roosh · 24-12-2009 02:14PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not exactly what he's saying. He's basically trying to rubbish the idea of evidence in favour of personal experience which allows you to "know" things as long as you think your senses are infallible and if you're 100% sure there have been no conscious or subconscious errors in interpretation. How one is supposed to do this remains to be seen

That's not necessarily what is being said either.

The points being made are:

1) [Personal] experience does not take place solely in the mind i.e.it is not completely imaginary, and therefore by definition is not subjective, but rather objective - because this is what the words objective and subjective actually refer to.

2) It is possible to know "things" (if we're not living in a dream or "the matrix")

3) Personal experience is the only source of knowledge open to human beings.

4) Science is dependet on various scientists personal experience in order to verify claims i.e. some scientists must personally carry out experiments in order to verify a hypothesis/claim, otherwise the hypothesis/claim goes unverified.

5) In order to verify something as correct or incorrect, there must be some experience of what is being claimed.

6) Personal experience cannot be explained using words, but only described. No attempt to rationalise an experience will be sufficient to capture the true nature of the experience, to the extent that the person who hears the rationalisation, will know exactly what was experienced and will have the same knowledge as the person who had the experience.

7) Knowledge of information about something, is not the same as knowing "the thing" itself. In fact, knowledge of information about something can only ever be believed, or accepted as truth based on faith,, until such point as a person verifies the information for themselves, personally.

To [try and] use a scientific example. This is just a general example and the core details are ultimately not essential for demonstration.

If we take string theory. There is quite a bit of information on the subject, and a number of theories also. The 5 differeing theories were united under M theory, and lets just assume that this is generally accepted as the "best" of all the theories.

There is mathematical modelling that supports this theory, and a scientist can be very well versed in it, and the other information surrounding string theory. However, as of yet, it cannot be said that M theory is correct. The reason may be because there is little evidence as of yet to support it, or because no one has actually seen the vibrating string.

A scientist may then discover a piece of evidence, through their own personal experience of carrying out experiments, and inform the wider scientific community. This of course will have to be verified by other scientists, who will have to witness this evidence for themselves. This witnessing of the evidence must be done so personally, before any scientist can verify the claim.

There may come a point when a certain threshold is reached and a sufficient number of scientists agree that a claim is correct, and the claim is published in various scientific journals as being true. A person may read this information and know the information about string theory.

Then, depending on their level of faith in the scientific method, or those scientists that verified the claim, they can choose to believe that the information is true. They cannot however, know that it is true, until such time as they witness the evidence for themselves.

Of course, evidence is not sufficient to say for sure that M theory is correct. In order to be sure that it is correct, a scientist will have to personally see the vibrating string. The same verfication process will have to occur, relying on the personal experience of each scientist at every step in the process.

Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Comments