Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

1…1113151617

Comments

  • #362
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's impossible to deal with the question of whether or not God exists using science alone, precisely because it is a philosophical question to begin with. That's what I would have thought anyway.

    Philosophy is a science, in fact some call it the mother of all science. It is supposed to be a logical and rational endeavour. You can't just put God outside human cross-examination based on semantics. You don't get it that easy!


  • #363
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's impossible to deal with the question of whether or not God exists using science alone, precisely because it is a philosophical question to begin with. That's what I would have thought anyway.

    The thing is that if your god actually existed I don't think that would be the case. For example if god was actually intervening in the world it would be obvious for all to see. If your god actually existed I think the evidence for his existence would be objectively convincing and people who denied his existence would be thought of the same way we might think of people who denied the existence of France.


  • #364
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's impossible to deal with the question of whether or not God exists using science alone, precisely because it is a philosophical question to begin with.
    Funny how everything else can be evaluated by science yet gods somehow get a pass. It's only a philosophical question because the religious god concept doesn't stand up to scrutiny in a real field of enquiry.


  • #365
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's impossible to deal with the question of whether or not God exists using science alone, precisely because it is a philosophical question to begin with. That's what I would have thought anyway.

    Depends on what you mean by "science alone"

    Religious people keep going on about these wonderful ways they can determine fact from fiction when it comes to the reality around us that don't some how require scientific methodologies. These methods some how go beyond the shackles of scientific standards.

    Yet when pressed to explain how these ways work there is a big fat silence, one assumes because these methods do not go beyond science, they merely abandon the scientific standards to come up with easy, yet unverifiable, answers.

    It is relatively easy to answer the question of whether God exists if you don't care if your answers is accurate or not, only that it is pleasing and makes sense to your own personal view of how the universe should work.


  • #366
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's impossible to deal with the question of whether or not God exists using science alone, precisely because it is a philosophical question to begin with. That's what I would have thought anyway.

    What do you think, though, of science dealing with Christ's resuerrection? I mean if science shows that reviving someone from the dead is possible then Christ's feat becomes rather shallow. God depends on being supernatural and outside science, because if he wasn't He wouldn't be God; he would be human.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    33% God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 338 ✭✭33% God


    Malty_T wrote: »
    What do you think, though, of science dealing with Christ's resuerrection? I mean if science shows that reviving someone from the dead is possible then Christ's feat becomes rather shallow. God depends on being supernatural and outside science, because if he wasn't He wouldn't be God; he would be human.
    On that note I've always liked this passage from Douglas Adams :p

    "[SIZE=-1]The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with the nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
    Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
    The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
    "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing."[/SIZE]


  • #368
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    What do you think, though, of science dealing with Christ's resuerrection? I mean if science shows that reviving someone from the dead is possible then Christ's feat becomes rather shallow. God depends on being supernatural and outside science, because if he wasn't He wouldn't be God; he would be human.

    Science deals with natural claims, not supernatural claims.

    If it was claimed that Christ's Resurrection were natural, of course that would be absolutely absurd. I'd find your post agreeable.

    Likewise if one comes to the argument with the assumption that:
    1) Everything is material.
    2) There is no ultimate reason for our existence.
    Of course it's going to be illogical because you've set up the parameters in your mind for it to be illogical.


  • #369
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Science deals with natural claims, not supernatural claims.

    If it was claimed that Christ's Resurrection were natural, of course that would be absolutely absurd. I'd find your post agreeable.

    Likewise if one comes to the argument with the assumption that:
    1) Everything is material.
    2) There is no ultimate reason for our existence.
    Of course it's going to be illogical because you've set up the parameters in your mind for it to be illogical.

    But if one comes to the argument with the opposite assumptions then you have no more reason to believe the claims of christianity over those of Islam or Buddhism or Sathya Sai Baba. This is a guy who right now has legions of followers who all attest to his supernatural powers and claim he regularly performs miracles. He recently had a birthday and a million people showed up but to quote Sam Harris, this guy doesn't warrant an hour on the evening news. But When you put claims like this in a 2000 year old completely unverifiable old book suddenly half the world are willing to shape their lives around its teachings.

    Sorry mate, even if you are 100% convinced that there is some kind of god, believing in christianity over all other religions is still illogical


  • #370
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Fair enough, if you don't think you are doing that. But I and others think you are so we can't really continue with your analogy any further.

    fair enough if you and others think that, but unfortunately my mind reading capabilities may not be on par with everyone elses, so if you, and others, can express those thoughts through the medium of language, and perhaps clarify what is that has lead ye to this perception, then we can explore if it is an accurate perception, or just a misperception.

    A good place to start may be to explain, what the "two meanings of the word real" are, and how they are [apparently] being confused.

    Ye may indeed be correct, but if ye are, then ye should be able to explain why.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is like saying "Star Wars never happened, it is a made up story, but people claim to have 'seen' it. How can people claim to have seen something that never happened, think about that for a minute! Blow your mind!"

    The issue being discussed is "externally viable evidence", and someone claiming to have seen something does not count as "externally viable evidence", so the comparison doesn't work.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    The issue here isn't the concepts of what is real or not real but purely a miss use of English.

    Again, if you can elaborate on that assertion and clarify where the misuse is, then we may come to agreement. As it stands what we have is an assertion that the english is being misused, with no clarification of where and how.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    If you can't see this I really can't discuss the analogy of countries and "real" things any further.

    If you can see it, then point out where and how, otherwise it is just an empty assertion.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not sure how you can say that. I've never experienced an atomic blast 5 metres from my face but I can explain to you what happens.

    How do you know the information you have is correct?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    On the other hand if you grab a man from Egypt ten thousand years ago and set off an atomic blast in front of him he wouldn't have a freaking clue what was happening to him, even if he had time to actually properly observe himself being vaporised.

    Again, there is a difference between knowldege and information. You may be able to explain in great detail, everything about childbirth, but a woman who has experienced childbirth will have knowledge about it that you have no access to.

    With regard to the explanation about what happens to a person during an atomic blast, was this information made up out of thin air, or how did it come about?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The experience on its own is pretty much useless in terms of knowledge gathering. You only start "knowing" what was happening when you start on the explanation, even if it is as simple as saying that painful thud in my face was someone hitting me with a 2 by 4

    What is there to explain without experience?

    How does one verify that an explanation is accurate?

    An explanation of something is not knowledge of that thing, it is knowledge of information about a thing, which may or may not be true. In order to verify the explanation one must have experience, otherwise one either chooses to believe an explanation or not.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yeah of course, the only way something can be verified is if someone actually verifies it, but that isn't relevant to the point.

    verification is the act of confirming if something is true. In order to say if something is true or not, one must have knowledge of the truth. If verification has to be done by a person themselves, in order to gain knowledge of the truth, then personal experience is the only way in which the truth can be verified.

    Otherwise, one chooses to either believe the information, or not.

    Therefore personal experience is the only way in which the truth can be verified, bearing in mind that someone else cannot verify something for another person. They can verify it for themselves and tell the other person what they have found, but unless the other person verifies it for themselves, then they choose to either believe or not.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    You still need the model. The experience of opening up someone's head is not going to tell you anything on its own.

    In order to confirn the model is true, then personal experience is required, as outlined above.



    Wicknight wrote: »
    No it doesn't, because raw sensory data is not knowledge. Feeling sharp pain in your face is not knowledge. I just got hit in the face by a plank of wood is knowledge and that is also the explanation for the experience.

    If someone gets hit in the face with a plank, would they have knowledge of what happens when a person gets hit in the face with a plank? Or if someone knows the explanation/information "I just got hit in the face by a plank of wood", would they know what it is to get hit in the face with a plank? Without the experience the information "I just got hit in the face by a plank of wood" is meaningless.

    If someone knows the information about how to drie a car, everything from the explanation of putting the car into gear, to increasing the speed and how to turn the steering wheel, right down to what actually happens in the engine when a person presses on the accelearator. If a person knows all this information, does that mean they have the knowledge of driving?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    And it is also subjective, you may not have just got hit in the face with a plank of wood, you may have felt that for some other reason.

    the explanation is subjective, the rationalisation that the feeling is sore, is subjective, and interpretation of the "raw sensory data" in the mind is subjective, but again, the mind and brain are not necessarily the same. Indeed, what many people understand as the minds is not necessarily what the mind is also, and investigating the "true nature of mind" can often prove beneficial.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    He is explaining it to someone, he is explaining it to himself. He is not going merely on experience, his experience is simply raw data. From his experiences he has constructed an explanation for what has happened when he played with the clutch, why what happened did happen.

    Again, the explanation is subjective, but a person does not necessarily need to explain an experience, one can just allow the experience to happen and allow it to fall away again without rationalising it in the conscious mind.

    Again, I don't have a rational explanation for how to measure the right force to use when throwing a stone to hit something, but through experience I can make accurate predictions on how to do it. In fact, it is usually when I try to think about it consciously that the accuracy of my "predictions" decrease.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    His ability or lack of ability to explain it to someone else has nothing to do with that fact. That is a question of lingustics and verbal expression. He may not have the words to communicate his model to someone else. But he knows it. It is his model in his own head.

    He could not have done any of that without forming a model in his head of how the clutch works. This is the explanation for his experiences with the clutch.

    How does he develop this model?

    Does he just formulate it in his head first day without ever seeing a car?

    How does he confirm that his model is correct i.e. how does he compare his model to what is true?



    Wicknight wrote: »
    "Becoming true" is irrelevant since humans never know if something they believe about the world (I just saw a cup) is true or not. Science recognises this and does not deal with true or false, simply with accurate or not accurate.

    Accuract is defined by what is true and what is not. The accuracy of something is determined by its proximity to the truth. If the truth cannot be known, then accuracy is meaningless.

    What is the reason that humans never know if something they believe is true or not?

    Wicknight wrote: »
    They would never say it is true.

    They would say it accurately predicts observed phenomena, or it doesn't accurately predict observed phenomena. The case for whether or not it accurately predicts observed phenomena is strengthened if other scientists can repeat the experiment using the same theory and get the same result as the first scientist.

    In science (or anything else for that matter) you never know is anything true or not, only degrees of how well it predicts phenomena.

    Ok, but when talking about the existence of an entity/being, then one is dealing with truth and reality. Observed phenomena, as science will attest to, is not necessarily an accurate "model" of reality.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And you can never know is something is true.

    why not?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    A good example is Newton's laws of motion. They accurately predicted observed phenomena up to a point. But they were inaccurate in some regards. Along came General Relativity. This more accurately predicted phenomena, so scientists could say that this was closer to what is actually happening than Newton (closer to the truth)

    But scientist don't know is some more accurate theory will come along tomorrow, and as such cannot say if General Relativity is true or not. It might be, it might be 100% accurate and require no further refinements, it might be as true an explanation as possible. But no scientists can determine this.

    OK, but the above deals more with the predictions of how gravity will operate, as opposed to its existence.

    How do they verify the accuracy of the predictions?

    According to scientific principles, is the force of Gravity true? Not necessarily the prediction made according to the model, but does that which is referred to as "gravity" exist in reality?


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Scientists watch the universe and build models of what they think is happening based on what they observe
    The act of "watching the universe" is personal experience


    Wicknight wrote: »
    A classic analogy is playing chess. You watch two people play chess and try and determine the rules from what they are doing. You see that one player moves his pawn two places, and you record that. The other player does that as well. You go "Ok, I have a model now of what a pawn can do, it can move two places"

    Then you see the player move is pawn one place. You go "Ah ha! My model was incurrate. A pawn can also move one place" You adjust your model

    After a while you notice that pawns only move two places on their first go. You add this to your model.

    After a while you have build up quite a good model of what can happen is chess. Is this model "true" (ie 100% accurate). You have no idea. You have no idea if the next move will show that your model is some what inaccurate in some way, just like what happened after the pawn moved only one place.

    Indeed, but the model only develops as knew knowledge is acquired through direct personal experience. In fact, the initial modl follows from personal experience i.e. a person observes the move of the pawn, and then creates an [incomplete] model based on that.


    Of course someone may present you with a model, before you ever start "observing" chess, but the only way you can confirm its accuracy is though personal experience, such as observing other players.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is the nature of human learning of the world around us, something science recognises. You never prove anything in science, you never know if your model is 100% accurate. You never know if you understand properly what just happened.

    One of the main issues with modelling, and often the reason for their [eventual] inaccuracy, is that they are based on assumptions that are not usually questioned, until such point as evidence is so strongly mounted against the model, that a questioning of the assumption is almost forced.

    However, the assumptions upon which a model is based can, and indeed should be, questioned from the outset. This is often an issue with human interpretation of experiences, the interpretation is often based on a primary assumption.

    Ideally, nothing should be assumed, but once something arises, it should be investigated. The problem is that we are often indocrinated with a wide number of assumptions about the world around us, that never go unquestioned. For some there are assumptions about the nature and existence of God, but for nearly all of us there are assumptions about who we are, and other assumptions about the nature of reality.

    While sciene does indeed seek to question many of these assumptions, there are some assumptions which even scientists may be unaware, because they are ingrained in the human psyche. Some [maybe not all] spiriutal practice, deals with questioning other deeply held assumptions, that affect nearly everyone on an individual level, including the most eminent scientists. These assumptions will then be borne out in scientific (and other) models, until such point as they are questioned.

    For example, with the model of chess play above, there may be an assumption that both players actually know how to play chess, when this may not be the case. They could perhaps be making illegal moves, which will then be borne out in our own personal model. This assumption could of course be investigated, ever before observing the two play chess.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No that isn't the question.

    The question is how do you know you are not making up the explanation. How do you know your mind is not playing a trick on you? How do you determine this on your own

    This highlights the flaw in relying purely on your own judgement. The idea that you would know if your brain was tricking you is silly.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is a completely non-answer. God could lie by representing something that is not true. The subjective nature of words is utterly irrelevant to his.

    The answer to the second quote above, followed from the first quote

    Again, there is the issue that the brain and the mind are not necessarily the same thing. There are spiritual models on the nature of mind, and the difference between the "ordinary mind" and the "true nature of the mind". The predictions of these spiritual models can be tested, but seeing as how one can only experience their own mind, personal experience is the only avenue open to explore them.

    Some of these spiritual models deal with questioning the very nature of who we are, or more to the point, who we think we are. This act of questioning the most fundamental assumption, held by the majority of people, can foster a tendency of questioning other fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, which can lead to some interesting insights.

    One can determing when one's mind is playing a trick on them by "questioning" their assumptions about what their mind has "told" them. Perhaps a better description would be, that one can tell when their mind is playing tricks on them, by developing a deeper understanding of the nature of their mind, and understanding better what part of the mind plays tricks. By doing this one can recognise this more readily and realise the illusory nature of the "ordinary mind".

    For exmple, if one is looking to tell the difference between a bed and God disguised as a bed, one can realise that any perception of something as a bed, is not necessarily reality, as the bed is the composition of sub-atomic (and possibly sub-string) particles. Then the question of telling the difference between a bed and God disguised as a bed, is no longer a meaningful question.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    What do you mean by "the truth" How does someone know that the first time they heard "the truth" it wasn't a lie?

    One cannot hear the truth, becaues words etc. are only ever attempts to describe the truth, they are not the truth itself. How does one know that they can drive a car? How does one know that they can cycle a bike?


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And as we have already established you cannot know that you know the truth. And as such you could always be being lied to.

    This, as of yet has not been established, rather asserted and refuted.



    Wicknight wrote: »
    Another non-answer.

    It's ok to say you don't know the answer to these questions Mangaroosh, people have been wrestling with this issues for thousands of years.

    I will say that I don't know the answer to the questions, because knowledge of information is ultimately not really knowledge, seeing as how information exists in the mind as thoughts and thoughts are not reality, and anything that is not reality does not exist.


  • #371
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Religious people keep going on about these wonderful ways they can determine fact from fiction when it comes to the reality around us that don't some how require scientific methodologies. These methods some how go beyond the shackles of scientific standards.
    One can gauge how useful religious inquiry is in reaching a conclusion, by noting how many religious leaders and religious people are in permanent and full agreement with each other.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    awombler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭awombler


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Philosophy is a science, in fact some call it the mother of all science. It is supposed to be a logical and rational endeavour.
    I would not fully agree with this. One of the fundamental issues in philosophy is whether rationality serves any purpose. I thinking of that problem of induction. We might know that any selected theory is broadly consistent with everything we've observed thus far, but that's no guarantee that all future events will also behave consistently. It all really rests on an assumption we make that things behave in rational, logical and consistent ways.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    You can't just put God outside human cross-examination based on semantics.
    That's a fair point, IMHO. But the ultimate proof of everything - be it a religion or any other proposition - is individual experience.

    Wherein lies the problem. You cannot directly transfer your individual experience to me.


  • #373
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I'm going to throw a sorta curve ball here at Mangaroosh.

    Suppose:

    Person A experiences a blip occuring only at slot A, whereas Person B experiences the blip occuring only at slot B. Both of them know exactly what they experienced but who is actually experiencing the objective reality, that you claim our personal experiences allow us to. So my question is, do you think it is possible for humans to experience an objective reality? If so, how?

    Also, slightly offtopic, but does anyknow how to get Firefox to spellcheck boards posts. Mine seems to have malfunctioned..:(


  • #374
    ayumi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭ayumi


    If we open our eyes and carefully study the workings of nature, we see regularity and order in all things – the rising and the setting of the sun, the waxing and the waning of the moon, the changing of the seasons, and so on. We see the same regularity in the birth, growth and decay of living creatures.

    In short we can very clearly observe that everything in nature follows a carefully-crafted and delicately-balanced order. This naturally requires a well-coordinated plan behind it. As such, if there is a plan, mustn’t there be a planner? If we live in a world of cause and effect, there must be an original uncaused cause.

    Our reason and our experience teach us that a plan can come only out of intelligence. When we look at the grand design and perfect balance of the universe, the unerring order and pattern in nature, how can we call this mere coincidence? In a world of random events, the sun could suddenly go out of its orbit and fly off at a tangent; the seas can become boiling acids, etc. There will be no law; no order.

    But ours is a universe of order, it is a cosmos and not a chaos. There is a reliable order, or a predictability and stability (instead of randomness) of laws governing the workings of the universe. Hence, scientists are able to do experiments and discover what they call the laws of nature or the laws of science.

    The foregoing considerations lead us to the inevitable conclusion that behind the operations of this universe there is a grand design or plan which must have a posteriori come out of an intelligence and vision which transcends and comprehends all the spheres of our knowledge, understanding, and experience. Furthermore, we find that the unity and the uniformity of the laws of nature unerringly point to the Unity of the Power behind the universe too.

    God is above the heavens, and above His creation. This, however, does not mean that He is contained by any sort of physical dimensions. God is close, very close, to those who believe in Him and He answers their every call. God knows all of our secrets, dreams, and wishes, as nothing is hidden from Him. God is with His creation by His knowledge and power. God is the Creator and the Sustainer. Nothing comes into existence except by His will.


    to atheis pple out there just ask urselves abt how everything was maded and why is there planets and why r they coordinated?why is the body functioned to do many things,nutrients are absorbed/removed by many organs?

    these qs have been asked by me and many of my friends to atheis pple in school and they dont answer them,even the atheis teacher couldnt answer our qs to him.we go into a depth argument and then u come to think of it evoultion laws came from atheis scienctist.WHY?


  • #375
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The thing is that I don't really care if your definition of the word technically matches what it says in most dictionaries (but not all).

    Just to clarify, it is not my definition that technically matches the dictionary, I am using the dictionary definition.

    Also, the statement that it "technically matches what it says in most dictionaries (but not all)". The definition of the word matched 12 of the 14 sources cited by yourself. The two instances where it differed, it was only part of the definition and even then it was highly debatable. One of the sources actually had another defintion that was more aligned with the OED and other definitons.

    The other "dictionary" that falls into the category of "not all" was a website called, something like, access.autistics.org. While I don't wish to cast any aspersions on the organisation or the content of the website, I must question the legitimacy of the site as a lexicon on the english langauge, especially when compared to the OED.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The fact remains that your understanding of the word is not the same as mine or indeed the same as anyone on the forum and since we do not accept your understanding of the words subjective and objective (among many others such as "experience", "know", "tacit knowledge" etc), we are not going to accept any opinion you have based on your understanding of those words.

    Again, just to be clear, that the understanding you have yourself, of the words, is not necessarily what they mean. Indeed, if there is any dispute, then it is the dictionary that is the "objective" source.

    For example, I may make the statement that "if I am at the bottom of a hill and I want to reach the top, then I must remain where I am". This statement is incorrect, as, in order to get to the top of a hill from the bottom, "remaining still" is not how this is achieved.

    If however, I maintain that what I understand as "remaining still", is actually what is described by the word "walking", then my statement is still incorrect, and it is I who needs to correct my understanding of the words I am using - as the words have predefined meanings.

    Of coure I don't have to change my understanding, I can continue to use the words erroneously, however, it will mean that there is a greater likelihood that what I say will be incorrect.

    You may decide yourself, not to accet my opinion, as expressed through the medium of english, on the basis that your understanding of the words I use are different to how you understand them, but the validity of my statements can be checked.

    If we actually work on your understanding of the word subjective and objective (as outlined throughout the discussion), then your understanding of the word is subjective while the dictionary definition is objective.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is an argument over semantics, much like our previous discussion where you defined the word supernatural to include anything that humans do not yet understand, as opposed to beyond the laws of nature which is my understanding of the word.

    Again, just to be clear, it is only an argument over semantics because it is yourself that is arguing over the meaning of the words. The words already have a meaning, as outlined in the dictionary.

    The same applies with the word supernatural.

    A further example. I may have an understanding of what the word "happy", and I may describe it as feeling or showing displeasure or discontentment. If this was the case then my understanding of the word would be incorrect, and any statements I made based on my assumption of the word would also [more than likely] be incorrect.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So there really is no point continuing the conversation. I'm sure all of your opinions make perfect sense to you but I don't have the same understanding of those words as you do so they make no sense to me and they never will because I am not going to change my understanding of the words.

    That's no problem, but if that is the case then be prepared to be wrong, a lot!
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And another reason not to continue it is that you have again written a massive chunk of text that I simply cannot summon the will to read. Honestly mangaroosh, if you want to have online discussions you need to get the hang of brevity, or click here:http://en.wordpress.com/signup/

    This is the third time I think you have said this, and [obviously] you are entitled not to read whatever you do not feel capable of reading, but honestly Sam, if you are struggling to follow a few longer than average posts, then perhaps you should question your understanding of a great number of things, not least your understanding of God.


  • #376
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    awombler wrote: »
    I would not fully agree with this. One of the fundamental issues in philosophy is whether rationality serves any purpose. I thinking of that problem of induction. We might know that any selected theory is broadly consistent with everything we've observed thus far, but that's no guarantee that all future events will also behave consistently. It all really rests on an assumption we make that things behave in rational, logical and consistent ways.That's a fair point, IMHO. But the ultimate proof of everything - be it a religion or any other proposition - is individual experience.

    Wherein lies the problem. You cannot directly transfer your individual experience to me.

    I would agree on both points. I was rather lax in my wording but I suppose you could keep taking away assumptions until you are left with nothing. Here lies the path to madness! :)


  • #377
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    ayumi wrote: »
    to atheis pple out there just ask urselves abt how everything was maded and why is there planets and why r they coordinated?why is the body functioned to do many things,nutrients are absorbed/removed by many organs?

    these qs have been asked by me and many of my friends to atheis pple in school and they dont answer them,even the atheis teacher couldnt answer our qs to him.we go into a depth argument and then u come to think of it evoultion laws came from atheis scienctist.WHY?

    Your english degraded rapidly at the end of your post there. You wouldn't be plagarising would you?

    You say the Universe is predictable, reliable and stable. If it follows such rules as gravity and evolution what need is there for a divine hand?


  • #378
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Also, slightly offtopic, but does anyknow how to get Firefox to spellcheck boards posts. Mine seems to have malfunctioned..:(

    Without knowing what has gone wrong with it, I guess you could check the settings.

    Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> "Check my spelling as I type" checkbox should be marked.

    Also, you can right click in the text box you are typing in and turn spelling off and on I think. Depends on your version though.


  • #379
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ayumi wrote: »
    If we open our eyes and carefully study the workings of nature, we see regularity and order in all things – the rising and the setting of the sun, the waxing and the waning of the moon, the changing of the seasons, and so on. We see the same regularity in the birth, growth and decay of living creatures.

    In short we can very clearly observe that everything in nature follows a carefully-crafted and delicately-balanced order. This naturally requires a well-coordinated plan behind it. As such, if there is a plan, mustn’t there be a planner? If we live in a world of cause and effect, there must be an original uncaused cause.

    Our reason and our experience teach us that a plan can come only out of intelligence. When we look at the grand design and perfect balance of the universe, the unerring order and pattern in nature, how can we call this mere coincidence? In a world of random events, the sun could suddenly go out of its orbit and fly off at a tangent; the seas can become boiling acids, etc. There will be no law; no order.

    But ours is a universe of order, it is a cosmos and not a chaos. There is a reliable order, or a predictability and stability (instead of randomness) of laws governing the workings of the universe. Hence, scientists are able to do experiments and discover what they call the laws of nature or the laws of science.

    The foregoing considerations lead us to the inevitable conclusion that behind the operations of this universe there is a grand design or plan which must have a posteriori come out of an intelligence and vision which transcends and comprehends all the spheres of our knowledge, understanding, and experience. Furthermore, we find that the unity and the uniformity of the laws of nature unerringly point to the Unity of the Power behind the universe too.

    God is above the heavens, and above His creation. This, however, does not mean that He is contained by any sort of physical dimensions. God is close, very close, to those who believe in Him and He answers their every call. God knows all of our secrets, dreams, and wishes, as nothing is hidden from Him. God is with His creation by His knowledge and power. God is the Creator and the Sustainer. Nothing comes into existence except by His will.


    to atheis pple out there just ask urselves abt how everything was maded and why is there planets and why r they coordinated?why is the body functioned to do many things,nutrients are absorbed/removed by many organs?

    these qs have been asked by me and many of my friends to atheis pple in school and they dont answer them,even the atheis teacher couldnt answer our qs to him.we go into a depth argument and then u come to think of it evoultion laws came from atheis scienctist.WHY?

    I'm sorry Poe's law has struck again. Are you being serious, do you really want me to answer your question?


  • #380
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ayumi wrote: »
    Our reason and our experience teach us that a plan can come only out of intelligence. When we look at the grand design and perfect balance of the universe, the unerring order and pattern in nature, how can we call this mere coincidence?

    That's what's called the teleological argument and it fails on many levels.

    If you want to go on believing in the "unerring order and pattern in nature", do not look at the attached picture and do not watch this video from which the picture is taken

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HE79YwImPY


    WARNING: DO NOT CLICK THIS IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED


  • #381
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Again, just to be clear, it is only an argument over semantics because it is yourself that is arguing over the meaning of the words. The words already have a meaning, as outlined in the dictionary.

    It's an argument over semantics because you use the words "supernatural", "know", "tacit knowledge", "subjective" and "objective" in a way that I have never seen them used. An experience cannot be objective because the only thing that can have an experience is a living being, ie a subject. A subject can only have a subjective experience even if the thing being experienced is objective. An experience exists only in the mind


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    Words, charactersm symbols, and numbers, are not dependent on personal characteristics of the mind, even if minds are needed to construct them. There are also not dependent on particular states I][B]of mind[/B][/I. They are therefore not subjective, as they instead depend on the collective experience and experiments of the scientific community.

    Again, the qualifying part of the explanation ("of the mind") has been emboldened and put in italics above, and added in parentheses where it was left out, as it is essential to the explanation.

    To illustrate the importance of the qualifier we can look at the following statements:

    The following example is to be taken in the context of measurement at one standard atmosphere.

    "0 degrees celcius is the freezing point"

    this statement is incorrect (or incomplete), as there are different freezing points for different liquids.

    However, we can add a number of different qualifiers to the statement:

    "0 degrees celcius is the freezing point of mercury"here the qualifier ""of mercury" has been added to the statement. The statement, however, remains incorrect, as 0 degrees celcious is not the freezing point of mercury.


    If we add a different qualifier:
    "0 degrees celcius is the freezing point of H2O"

    here the qualifier "of H2O" has been added. With this qualifier, the statement become true.

    There may be conditions under which the statements below are deemed false, however, the addition of these conditions are themselves further qualifiers.

    Morbert wrote: »
    Well yes, it is different. But if I am unable to formulate knowledge then I won't be able to compare my experiences to the experiences of others. If a woman tenders an incoherent theory of childbirth, then other women will not be able to see if her theory also describes and predicts their experience of childbirth.

    Whether or not you are able to compare your experience to others has no bearing on your knowledge of something. If the above woman cannot formulate a coherent explanation of her experience of childbirth, it does not mean that she is no longer in possession of the knowledge. It may mean that other women cannot determine whether or not she has actually experienced childbirth, but that still does not affect the original womans knowledge.

    It may mean that the other women won't believe here claim, but it is immaterial, as knowledge of the claim and belief in it, is not sufficient for the other women to have knowledge of childbirth. In order to gain this knowledge, they must experience it for themselves, and it is ultimately immaterial how it is described.

    Of course, this is working off the assumption that a coherent explanation won't be possible. It may be a case that the experience itself is not completely describable in words (as is actually the case with all experiences), but that a "half decent" description is possible. Again, however, knowledge of the description does not substitute for actual knowledge gained through experience.

    This may lead to difficulty in identifying who to believe and who not to, but personal investigation can help in this process.
    Morbert wrote: »
    And how would direct experience give us any knowledge of a mind-independent reality?

    It isn't important how it would do this, just as it isn't necessarily important to know exactly how the engine of a car works in order to drive it.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Coherent instrumental descriptions of experiences with predictive power is the best we've done so far.

    How are these descriptions and predictions verified?


  • #383
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    This is the third time I think you have said this, and [obviously] you are entitled not to read whatever you do not feel capable of reading, but honestly Sam, if you are struggling to follow a few longer than average posts, then perhaps you should question your understanding of a great number of things, not least your understanding of God.

    It's not so much that I'm incapable of reading it, it's that I've had a few discussions with yourself before and I just don't see it going anywhere. Your view of the world is massively different to mine to the point that you ascribe very different meanings to words and it's very difficult to talk to someone when you're pretty sure that anything you say is going to be misinterpreted because of this. If you wrote shorter replies I might be willing to respond but I don't particularly want to spend about half an hour a time saying "that's not what that word means" and "no that's not what I meant", especially since it will all be lost in the noise of a 1000 word reply

    Pretty much your whole point is predicated on your understanding of the words subjective and objective. By your understanding of those words certain things can be argued but I do not share your understanding of those words and neither does anyone on the forum so the whole thing becomes a massive debate on the meanings of words.


  • #384
    awombler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭awombler


    ayumi wrote: »
    if there is a plan, mustn’t there be a planner?
    I'm sure others have put this much better than me, but, no, simply calling that 'order' a plan does not require a planner. At least, not a 'planner' in the sense of a god known to any religion.

    All you can say of this 'planner' is that it was a sufficient cause of the universe that we know. There is no basis for assuming this 'planner' to be an omnipotent, caring god.

    Of course, its still possible for someone to assert a belief that their personal experience suggests to them that such a god is guiding and aiding them. But that's quite a different matter.
    ayumi wrote: »
    If we live in a world of cause and effect, there must be an original uncaused cause.
    I don't know, but would the existence of an uncaused cause not disprove the notion of cause and effect? If one thing can be uncaused, why cannot many (or all) things be uncaused?


  • #385
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    In addition to my previous post. Here are some examples of the common use of the word objective we are adopting.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#H1









    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)



    Some of these examples are indeed from wikipedia, but they are all well supported by references. And important examples are not from wikipedia, so I pre-emptively disagree with any objection to using such sources. It is evident that your definition of objective is very different to the one used by the majority of people here, and I would wager that, if a single definition was adopted for this discussion, the conversation would progress much more rapidly.

    I haven't had a chance to read the essay yet, but I will make some pre-emptive points of my own. Firstly however, I will say that we are in agreement on one thing, a single definition is not only necessary, but it pretty much all that is possible. If people work on different definitions, based on what they think a word should mean, then communication through the medium of language is effectively useless.

    I propose the dictionary definition of the word, as I believe it is the most reliable source.

    I will also say that, if the essay proposes a definition of the word that is not as described in the dictionary (it appears that most are in agreement anyway), then it is incorrect. If one wishes to look up the meaning of a word it is the dictionary that is used, or at least that should be, as it is the dictionary that is most reliable. Actually it is farcical to suggest that anything other than the dictionary should be used as a lexicon.

    As for the pre-emptive disagreement against a challenge of the sources, on the basis that they are all well supported with references, I ask only, are the references themselves reliable sources, and has the dictionary been consulted.

    I once read a 12 page paper on the meaning of the word supernatural, and not once in the paper was the dictionary referenced, rather the discussion was based on a discussion of what other people thought the word meant.

    Just to be clear. If one wishes to get the official meaning of a word, look it up in a dictionary. With regard to the english langauge, the OED is [arguably] the most reliable source.


  • #386
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    How are these descriptions and predictions verified?

    You keep asking this question as if it proves something. The predictions are verified by scientists doing experiments. Yes they "personally experience" the experiments. All that shows is that verifying something for yourself is better than taking someone's word for it in some cases.

    However it does not mean that personal experience is inherently better than externally verifiable evidence. A million people can think they have experienced something and they can still be wrong. A process of peer review involving years of repeatable experiments and thousands of scientists trying to disprove something is and will always remain a far superior way of determining "truth" than one guy's opinion about how great he is at interpreting his senses


  • #387
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Quickly, give me your first impression, someone walks up to you and says they are setting up a camcorder to record the gnomes coming alive in their garden at night. How intelligent do you imagine this person is?

    I'm not saying it's true, intelligent people are religious, but it's natural to quickly come to this conclusion when faced with individuals who claim belief in the fantastical. I'm sure there where some Mensans at Knock staring at the Sun hoping to see Mary. Intelligence is really only a vehicle for how quickly you can digest information. If you don't digest the right information, all the intelligence in the world won't help you.

    The most annoying atheist argument is that kind of one.
    You simply do not understand where others are coming from.

    I hate the argument that science has proven there is no God. It has not. There are theories on subjects such as evolution and the creation of the universe, and historical evidence and records that contradict parts of various holy books.

    That is still not proof that there is no God. What we do know for certain, is that there is much in life and the universe, and about life and the universe, that we do not know.

    All we can be sure of is that we do not know everything.
    Various religions offer answers/explanations of these unknown. To be fair, science has not offered a definitive rebuttal to "God created the heaven and the earth". There is no scientific theory I have heard where one could not ask, "and what came before that".


  • #388
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    The most annoying atheist argument is that kind of one.
    You simply do not understand where others are coming from.

    I hate the argument that science has proven there is no God. It has not.
    That's one of the most annoying theist arguments there. No one ever said that science has proven there is no god. When people talk about science and evidence in general, they're talking about whether or not it is reasonable to believe in a god. There might well be gnomes coming alive at night, in order to disprove that science would have to be recording every square inch of the planet at all times just in case a gnome popped out of the ground and started dancing but even though science cannot disprove dancing gnomes we still don't believe in them because doing so would not be reasonable.

    When people say science can't disprove god this is essentially the argument being presented:
    2843905157_3abe047f44.jpg

    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    To be fair, science has not offered a definitive rebuttal to "God created the heaven and the earth". There is no scientific theory I have heard where one could not ask, "and what came before that".

    What came before god? If everything has to be created surely god has to be created and if god can just "always exist" why can't matter just "always exist"?


  • #389
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Your english degraded rapidly at the end of your post there. You wouldn't be plagarising would you?
    Copied and pasted from here.


  • #390
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Again, the qualifying part of the explanation ("of the mind") has been emboldened and put in italics above, and added in parentheses where it was left out, as it is essential to the explanation.

    To illustrate the importance of the qualifier we can look at the following statements:

    The following example is to be taken in the context of measurement at one standard atmosphere.

    "0 degrees celcius is the freezing point"

    this statement is incorrect (or incomplete), as there are different freezing points for different liquids.

    However, we can add a number of different qualifiers to the statement:

    "0 degrees celcius is the freezing point of mercury"here the qualifier ""of mercury" has been added to the statement. The statement, however, remains incorrect, as 0 degrees celcious is not the freezing point of mercury.


    If we add a different qualifier:
    "0 degrees celcius is the freezing point of H2O"

    here the qualifier "of H2O" has been added. With this qualifier, the statement become true.

    There may be conditions under which the statements below are deemed false, however, the addition of these conditions are themselves further qualifiers.

    We both accept "of the mind". You, however, are ignoring "personal characteristics" and "particular states". According to the dictionary definition, a statement is subjective if it depends on a particular state of mind/personal characteristics. Scientific theories do not depend on a particular states of mind, or a personal characteristic.

    Whether or not you are able to compare your experience to others has no bearing on your knowledge of something. If the above woman cannot formulate a coherent explanation of her experience of childbirth, it does not mean that she is no longer in possession of the knowledge. It may mean that other women cannot determine whether or not she has actually experienced childbirth, but that still does not affect the original womans knowledge.

    It may mean that the other women won't believe here claim, but it is immaterial, as knowledge of the claim and belief in it, is not sufficient for the other women to have knowledge of childbirth. In order to gain this knowledge, they must experience it for themselves, and it is ultimately immaterial how it is described.

    Of course, this is working off the assumption that a coherent explanation won't be possible. It may be a case that the experience itself is not completely describable in words (as is actually the case with all experiences), but that a "half decent" description is possible. Again, however, knowledge of the description does not substitute for actual knowledge gained through experience.

    And the fact that this knowledge cannot be communicated means we cannot determine whether or not the knowledge depends on a particular state of mind or a personal characteristic, which is the point we have been making. Nobody has been arguing that experiences aren't indicative of objectivity. We are saying personal experiences aren't enough to determine whether or not they are indicative of objectivity.
    It isn't important how it would do this, just as it isn't necessarily important to know exactly how the engine of a car works in order to drive it.

    Then we cannot say our experiences are necessarily true. Scientists accept this, so they settle for impartiality.
    How are these descriptions and predictions verified?

    Repeatable experimentation, carried out by multiple people. The repeatability of experiments help to filter out facets of observations which stem from a personal characteristic or a particular state of mind.
    haven't had a chance to read the essay yet, but I will make some pre-emptive points of my own. Firstly however, I will say that we are in agreement on one thing, a single definition is not only necessary, but it pretty much all that is possible. If people work on different definitions, based on what they think a word should mean, then communication through the medium of language is effectively useless.

    I propose the dictionary definition of the word, as I believe it is the most reliable source.

    I will also say that, if the essay proposes a definition of the word that is not as described in the dictionary (it appears that most are in agreement anyway), then it is incorrect. If one wishes to look up the meaning of a word it is the dictionary that is used, or at least that should be, as it is the dictionary that is most reliable. Actually it is farcical to suggest that anything other than the dictionary should be used as a lexicon.

    As for the pre-emptive disagreement against a challenge of the sources, on the basis that they are all well supported with references, I ask only, are the references themselves reliable sources, and has the dictionary been consulted.

    I once read a 12 page paper on the meaning of the word supernatural, and not once in the paper was the dictionary referenced, rather the discussion was based on a discussion of what other people thought the word meant.

    Just to be clear. If one wishes to get the official meaning of a word, look it up in a dictionary. With regard to the english langauge, the OED is [arguably] the most reliable source.

    I have been arguing that I am indeed using a dictionary definition, and have referenced a dictionary. The definition also conforms to the OED definition:"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.". I have now given multiple sources where the word is used in a manner similar to the way it is used here.

    Remember that I am not arguing that your definition is wrong, but rather that there are multiple definitions, and the one we are using is a common one. The Philosophy essay, for example, talks about the multiple meanings of objective and subjective.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Morbert wrote: »
    Remember that I am not arguing that your definition is wrong, but rather that there are multiple definitions, and the one we are using is a common one. The Philosophy essay, for example, talks about the multiple meanings of objective and subjective.

    Exactly. Both meanings of the word are valid. But as I keep saying, even if we use mangaroosh's narrow definition of the word this statement is wrong:
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    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.

    Personal experience most certainly does take place solely in the mind. Even if you are experiencing something that is objective, your experience of it is still entirely dependent on your mind. The "experience" is nothing more than a series of electrical signals stored chemically in your brain. Kill your brain and the experience no longer exists.

    If experience was objective, things like this would not happen but they happen all the time.


Advertisement