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…1112141617

Comments

  • #392
    ayumi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭ayumi


    iUseVi wrote: »
    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?

    yea i did copy the post but at the end i added my qs to what was said by a scholar,its true when u think abt it there is something behind all of the working of nature,universe,body etc.if evolution existed were did the very first thing come from and gravity was maded by someone,soo there is a planner and I DONT BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION EXISTED AND THERE IS A GOD AND HE WAS THE CREATER OF ALL THINGS!


  • #393
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ayumi wrote: »
    yea i did copy the post but at the end i added my qs to what was said by a scholar,its true when u think abt it there is something behind all of the working of nature,universe,body etc.if evolution existed were did the very first thing come from and gravity was maded by someone,soo there is a planner and I DONT BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION EXISTED AND THERE IS A GOD AND HE WAS THE CREATER OF ALL THINGS!

    Simple question :

    If we needed a created, then why didn't God?


  • #394
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    ayumi wrote: »
    yea i did copy the post but at the end i added my qs to what was said by a scholar,its true when u think abt it there is something behind all of the working of nature,universe,body etc.if evolution existed were did the very first thing come from and gravity was maded by someone,soo there is a planner and I DONT BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION EXISTED AND THERE IS A GOD AND HE WAS THE CREATER OF ALL THINGS!

    Firstly, please use your full keyboard. Now, not believing that evolution existed in 2010 is about as consistent with reality as not believing that gravity exists. Evolution is as fully supported an idea as any in science. But evolution does not pretend to explain the origins of the universe, only the diversity and complexity of life, contrary to what many creationists say. You can "believe" in evolution and still believe in god. But as Malty_T says, if you can't imagine something as complex as the universe "just existing", why do you have no problem with the concept of god "just existing", presumably a being that is infinitely more complex?


  • #395
    rohatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 233 ✭✭rohatch


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Simple question :

    If we needed a created, then why didn't God?

    We always end up back here.

    Who created us = god made us and the universe.

    Why are we here = god made us and the universe to appease his ego.

    Who created god = no one, he is all powerful, nothing is more powerful. He just is as always was.

    Could something else have created us = no one could, he is all powerful, nothing is more powerful. He just is as always was.

    Nothing can be created from nothing. = what about god then ........hhhmmmmm

    Round and round the argument goes.

    How do we know about god? = the bible tells us about god
    How do we know about the bible? = the bible is the word of god

    How do we know its real? = god told us it was real
    (i think dades has a nice circular picture chart to highlight this)


    The only truthfull evidence for the bible, is that it is only a collection of different stories over a 1600 year period, with 80% missing or destroyed by catholics.

    The 1st gospel does not appear until 70-90 AD. There is also a huge issue with translations and arguments that still rage on about a virgin or young woman.

    There is no evidence there was a jesus yet it still doesn't stop anyone believing.





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


  • #396
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    rohatch wrote: »
    How do we know its real? = god told us it was real
    (i think dades has a nice circular picture chart to highlight this)

    break-the-cycle.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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:
    [image]


    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"?

    Ok perhaps I didnt spell this out enough for you.
    You are using strawmen arguments.

    You make superficial analogies and demolish them rather than actually deconstructing your opponents actual position.

    It is your flawed understanding of what your opponents think God is that is preventing you from seeing why your analogy is flawed.

    A better analogy is that god is the creator of a movie (scrip writer, casting director, props etc).
    So take the POV of the film viewer, or an actor during production who doesn’t have the full script in front of him.
    The choices a character made can be seen to affect another character or event and so on. Combinations of lighting and sound give one effect or another to the end product. Innocuous background elements play pivotal roles. You get the picture.

    (Imagine for a moment that we dont know it is a film) As the actor / viewer you can feel that it was all causality, chance and the will of the protagonists that brought about the end result. And that makes perfect sense based on the evidence available.

    But another actor / viewer beside you might feel that something so perfect didnt just happen together. That there was some guiding hand pushing it along and making sure things worked out. That this force knew from the beginning what was going to happen, because to this force it has already happened.

    Its not about a super man type character flying through the sky smoting bad guys and diverting natural disasters. Thats the type of thing I think you think God is when you talk about dancing gnomes.

    And its not that Im asking you to disprove God. Though your cartoon does fit into the straw man category. If you want to use baseballs, then it would be if you and I were in a park that happened to be beside a baseball stadium. I find a ball and say I believe it was hit out of the stadium by some famous player one time. You say its more logical that it belongs to some kids who were playing in the park.
    To be fair, neither of us knows where it came from. You can make very reasonable, logical arguments about why it probably is as you say. but you cant prove it, and you cant disprove my theory.


  • #398
    rohatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 233 ✭✭rohatch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    break-the-cycle.jpg
    Thanks Sam, apologies for giving credit to dades


  • #399
    rohatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 233 ✭✭rohatch


    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    Ok perhaps I didnt spell this out enough for you.
    You are using strawmen arguments.

    You make superficial analogies and demolish them rather than actually deconstructing your opponents actual position.

    It is your flawed understanding of what your opponents think God is that is preventing you from seeing why your analogy is flawed.

    A better analogy is that god is the creator of a movie (scrip writer, casting director, props etc).
    So take the POV of the film viewer, or an actor during production who doesn’t have the full script in front of him.
    The choices a character made can be seen to affect another character or event and so on. Combinations of lighting and sound give one effect or another to the end product. Innocuous background elements play pivotal roles. You get the picture.

    (Imagine for a moment that we dont know it is a film) As the actor / viewer you can feel that it was all causality, chance and the will of the protagonists that brought about the end result. And that makes perfect sense based on the evidence available.

    But another actor / viewer beside you might feel that something so perfect didnt just happen together. That there was some guiding hand pushing it along and making sure things worked out. That this force knew from the beginning what was going to happen, because to this force it has already happened.

    Its not about a super man type character flying through the sky smoting bad guys and diverting natural disasters. Thats the type of thing I think you think God is when you talk about dancing gnomes.

    And its not that Im asking you to disprove God. Though your cartoon does fit into the straw man category. If you want to use baseballs, then it would be if you and I were in a park that happened to be beside a baseball stadium. I find a ball and say I believe it was hit out of the stadium by some famous player one time. You say its more logical that it belongs to some kids who were playing in the park.
    To be fair, neither of us knows where it came from. You can make very reasonable, logical arguments about why it probably is as you say. but you cant prove it, and you cant disprove my theory.

    Your theory is MAD


  • #400
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    Ok perhaps I didnt spell this out enough for you.
    You are using strawmen arguments.

    You make superficial analogies and demolish them rather than actually deconstructing your opponents actual position.

    It is your flawed understanding of what your opponents think God is that is preventing you from seeing why your analogy is flawed.

    A better analogy is that god is the creator of a movie (scrip writer, casting director, props etc).
    So take the POV of the film viewer, or an actor during production who doesn’t have the full script in front of him.
    The choices a character made can be seen to affect another character or event and so on. Combinations of lighting and sound give one effect or another to the end product. Innocuous background elements play pivotal roles. You get the picture.

    (Imagine for a moment that we dont know it is a film) As the actor / viewer you can feel that it was all causality, chance and the will of the protagonists that brought about the end result. And that makes perfect sense based on the evidence available.

    But another actor / viewer beside you might feel that something so perfect didnt just happen together. That there was some guiding hand pushing it along and making sure things worked out. That this force knew from the beginning what was going to happen, because to this force it has already happened.
    What you have there is called hyperactive agency detection. Human beings are wired to see purpose in everything, whether there is actually purpose or not. It's a very useful evolutionary device that allowed us to see a crocodile where a less well adapted animal saw a rock and promptly died but it can quite often misfire. We used to ascribe things like lightning to gods but now we know better. And if you believe that the world is "so perfect that there must be some guiding hand pushing it along and making sure things work out", you must never have seen this picture:
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=100194&stc=1&d=1262104632

    WARNING: DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED

    and you must not have seen this video from which the picture is taken:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HE79YwImPY

    The world only looks like there's a "guiding hand pushing it along making sure everything works out", if you ignore the vast number of things that do not work out. If there is a guiding hand it is either pathetically weak or malevolent.


    You should also watch this excellent video. It goes a long way to explaining the origins of religious belief at a neurological level, including hyperactive agency detection:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    Its not about a super man type character flying through the sky smoting bad guys and diverting natural disasters. Thats the type of thing I think you think God is when you talk about dancing gnomes.

    And its not that Im asking you to disprove God. Though your cartoon does fit into the straw man category. If you want to use baseballs, then it would be if you and I were in a park that happened to be beside a baseball stadium. I find a ball and say I believe it was hit out of the stadium by some famous player one time. You say its more logical that it belongs to some kids who were playing in the park.
    To be fair, neither of us knows where it came from. You can make very reasonable, logical arguments about why it probably is as you say. but you cant prove it, and you cant disprove my theory.

    You say "its not that Im asking you to disprove God", then you end with "you cant disprove my theory", essentially challenging me to disprove it. But the point being made is that it doesn't matter that we can't prove either way that god doesn't exist because there are an infinite number of things whose non-existence cannot be proven but we don't believe in them anyway because it's not reasonable to do so. Saying "you cant disprove my theory" is a bad argument for exactly the same reason as it's a bad argument to say you can't prove I don't have a baseball. You are the one making a claim so you have to justify it.

    And besides all that, even if I was to totally accept that there was an intelligence guiding the universe, that's a far cry from accepting that a Jewish guy raised from the dead 2000 years ago.


  • #401
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    rohatch wrote: »
    Thanks Sam, apologies for giving credit to dades

    I'm sure he's posted it before too. I just googled "biblical circular reasoning" to find it again :)


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    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

    Interesting article alright. The differing definitions put forward for both objectivity and subjectivity, are not wildly different from what we have been discussing.

    While the OED, and apparently a wide range of dictionaries, propose that subjectivity is anything that is dependent on the mind for existence, the definition depends on what one understands by "mind"; whether what one understands as mind is essentially what the mind is; is there a potentially different understanding of what mind is; what is the true nature of mind?


    With regard to the discussion about subjectivity being dependent on the subject, and objectivity being dependent on the object, the issue becomes what is the nature of the object; what is the nature of the subject; what is the true nature of the self.


    Spiritual practice deals almost soleley with these questions, i.e. what is the true nature of the self and the mind.


  • #403
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    And just for ****s and giggles (although this will stray us far off topic): I put it to you that, (accepting your definition of objective and subjective) it is impossible to determine any objective properties of the universe.

    Just to be clear again, it isn't my definition, it is the Oxfor English Dictionary [among apparently most other dictionaries] definition.

    Of course it depends on what you mean by determining objective properties of the universe. It would not be possible to explain any properties of the universe objectively, because all explanations are, by their use of words, symbols, numbers. etc., subjective.

    We could however know the universe objectively.

    The term universe is somewhat misleading however, as what we perceive as the universe is entirely subjective regardless of the definition, as scientific findings will attest to. The universe exists at the sub-atomic level, yet we just have a perception of it, which is subjective.

    What we see as the universe, is not necessarily the true nature of reality. However, we exist at the sub-atomic level and are experiencing that right now, and we exist in reality, which we are experiencing right now.

    Of course the issue becomes about the true nature of ourselves or who we actually are. Science tells us that our bodies are just a subjective perception and are little more than an illusion. Spiritual practice tells us that we are not the contents of our ["ordinary] minds" and that such things as our identification with our names, nationality, profession, religious beliefs, moral beliefs etc. etc. is just another illusion, or perhaps delusion.

    The question then is who or what are we, in reality and not in our perception of reality?


  • #404
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What you have there is called hyperactive agency detection. Human beings are wired to see purpose in everything, whether there is actually purpose or not.

    You've a gap in your logic there, you have already assumed you know the conclusion. "Whether there is purpose or not".
    "so perfect that there must be some guiding hand pushing it along and making sure things work out", you must never have seen this picture:

    That old chestnut, how could god allow x, y or z to happen.
    Again, thats down to what you think I think God is. I do not believe the world is or supposed to be an idyllic paradise.
    Nor can anyone know the enterity of another persons experience of existence.
    You say "its not that Im asking you to disprove God", then you end with "you cant disprove my theory", essentially challenging me to disprove it.
    And only by cutting out everything in between those two quotes are you able to twist what I said to suit your purpose.

    And besides all that, even if I was to totally accept that there was an intelligence guiding the universe, that's a far cry from accepting that a Jewish guy raised from the dead 2000 years ago.

    Once again building a strawman, and once again back to the problem here being your presumptions about what your opponent believes.


  • #405
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    You've a gap in your logic there, you have already assumed you know the conclusion. "Whether there is purpose or not".
    I haven't assumed anything you see, the only person making an assumption is the person who says that he believes there is a guiding hand. You are the one making a claim so you are the one who has to justify it. What you're talking about here is basically the theory of intelligent design, a theory that has been laughed out of science laboratories and out of courts again and again. The judge in the latest trial used the term "breathtaking inanity" to describe the case put forward by the people who wanted intelligent design taught in schools.

    If you want to say that there must be a guiding hand you can do that but only insofar as free speech allows you to say whatever you want. The fact remains that there is nothing to suggest that there is a guiding hand because all of the complexity and apparent "perfection" around you can be explained scientifically and there is an awful lot to suggest no guiding hand whatsoever, such as the picture of the deformed babies in my previous post. If you want to claim that "something so perfect didnt just happen together. That there was some guiding hand pushing it along and making sure things worked out", you must account for everything, not just the good things. You must account for the fact that the world is far from perfect and that things very often don't work out. Only looking at the things that confirm your theory and ignoring all the things that go against it is called confirmation bias
    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    Once again building a strawman, and once again back to the problem here being your presumptions about what your opponent believes.

    What I know is that arguments such as this are used time and time again by religious believers to justify belief in god. I was pointing out that these arguments do not justify belief in a particular religion in any way. I could completely accept your argument and then declare that the guiding hand was actually the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster. The point is that, even if I accept your argument, so what? What difference does it make to my life if I accept that there is some kind of guiding hand since there is no way to determine whether the hand is noodly or not?


  • #406
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Ohh..

    We have another theist in our midst. Let's eat get Him!
    Stabby how bout you tell us what you kinda of God you believe in?
    That way it'd be easier to avoid the strawman.


  • #407
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Malty_T wrote: »
    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?

    There is an assumption here that the experience of a blip is the nature of objective reality. That would be highly questionable. Also, the nature and existence of slots A and B would need to be explored because they sound as though they themselves, may be entirely subjective.


    As for humans being able to experience objective reality, we are experiencing it right now, the issue is that our perception is such that we do not recognise it. Perception of course is what is subjective, although I would suggest that correct perception is possible.

    One way may be to consider perspective in terms of 360 degrees of perception, where the 12 O'Clock position is what is referred to as "pure" or "correct" perception.

    Together with that, if we consider perception as a series of criss-crossed misperceptions, or a web of delusions if you will. It is only through the systematic elimination of these delusions that one can arrive at an objective experience of reality, that isn't "obscured" by the mind. The act of experiencing without rationalising, accepting what one sees, hears and feels without believing it to be reality, ultimately allowing yourself and reality to be as they are, without grasping at concepts.

    "Enlightenment" would [probably] be the term that captures it best, something everyone is capable of experiencing, and that some allegedly have, and on which there exists a great body of information.


  • #408
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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.

    That is why it may be useful to refer to a dictionary. The dictionary, under the principles that you have adopted would be considered the objective opinion.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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

    Again, this is not necessarily what the word subjective actually means, however, if it does, then what is the nature of the subject, or living being?


  • #409
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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.

    The argument I have been putting forward has not been predicated on my understanding of the words subjective and objective, rather that the words subjective and objective best convey what it is that I am saying.

    Again, it isn't my own personal understanding of the words either, it is how they are defined in the dictionary. The semantical argument has arisen because the meaning of the words, as outlined in the dictionary, is being dismissed in favour of a personal understanding.

    Under the alternative description of the words [as opposed to the dictionary], then it is the personal understanding that is subjective and it is the dictionary definition that is objective.


  • #410
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    This may or may not be considered a long post, but one of the reasons that it is long is because it seeks to explore in more detail the assumption outlined below.

    While the peer review process is indeed much better than accepting one guys opinion, how the peer review process operates [in general] needs to be explored.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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.

    Precisely, I completely agree with you.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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


    The problem appears to be a general overview of the concept of peer review without examining the fundamental principles upon which it is based.

    Just to be clear, the argument thus far has not been about anyone's opinion on the existence of God, it has been about personal experience being the only available means with regard to the acquistion of knowledge.

    The fact that personal experience is the only way in which knowledge can be acquired, does not mean that God exists, that would be a non-sequitor, it simply means that personal experience is the only way in which knowledge can be acquired.

    The peer review process is [in generic terms] about verifying the truth of one persons claim, to assess whether or not it is true. In order for this assessment to be made, those verifying the claim must know what the truth is, otherwise they cannot be in a position to make a statement of truth with regard to the claim.

    The peer review process then involves a large number of individuals acquiring knowledge for themselves, through personal experience, so that they can then be in a position to make a truth claim themselves - that either supports or denies the original claim.

    If the majority of people, who have acquired knowledge of the truth for themselves, agree that the original claim is correct, then the original claim is deemed to be correct, and this is disseminated to a wider audience.

    The thing is, that this wider audience then chooses to believe or not, the information about the truth that they have been presented with. They cannot know that it is true unless, they verify it for themselves.


    Again, it is only those that verify the claim for themselves that can know the truth. If many people verify a claim for themselves, they may all agree with a particular claim, but those that do not verify the claim for themselves can only choose to believe or not, on the basis of faith.


  • #411
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


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

    Apologies for jumping in, but I think that is a decent point for discussion.

    With regard to the above, if scientific principles are applied to that claim about the baseball and the subsequent production of the baseball, then the claim would remain untrue.

    The baseball itself is just a subjective perception, of the assembled sub-atomic particles, and is therefore not how the "baseball" actually exists, rather how it is perceived to exist.

    The discussion on the existence of anything is expressly a discussion about reality - as reality is the state of things at they actually exist.

    As such the baseball does not actually exist in reality, rather it is perceived to exist, and the evidence is misleading.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    As such the baseball does not actually exist in reality, rather it is perceived to exist, and the evidence is misleading.

    How do you live your everyday life? If you actually lived by the rules your setting about in this thread you would lock yourself into a basement forever.

    Although who's to say the basement is actually locked, the lock is only perceived to exist as sub atomic particles.


  • #413
    ayumi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭ayumi


    think of it in a different way,
    so your a person living on this earth and your living working etc and then you realise that there is no meaning in life your just living, so you ask yourself,why Im I here?Am I here for something?why does the body work in that way?why is everything detailed in life?

    also god gave a human a brain unlike animals soo that they can discover new thinks but the brain was made to funtion on certain aspects but the only question that no one will be able o answer is where did everything start from?
    if you born into a family of any religion you will understand what the bible,torah,quran says about everything and where everything started.every q has an answer if you read any of these important books to a person


  • #414
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ayumi wrote: »
    also god gave a human a brain unlike animals
    Let's take a parrot shall we.
    Obituary of Alex the parrot wrote:
    Alex had the intelligence of a five-year-old child and had not reached his full potential. He had a vocabulary of 150 words. He knew the names of 50 objects and could, in addition, describe their colours, shapes and the materials they were made from. He could answer questions about objects' properties, even when he had not seen that particular combination of properties before. He could ask for things—and would reject a proffered item and ask again if it was not what he wanted. He understood, and could discuss, the concepts of “bigger”, “smaller”, “same” and “different”. And he could count up to six, including the number zero (and was grappling with the concept of “seven” when he died).

    That's only a "birdbrain" by the way.

    It pains me that I'm on dial up because I'd love to show you how similar our intelligence is to pigs. Googling is not easy though, some other time perhaps. :(

    Reading this would also be advisable.

    if you born into a family of any religion you will understand what the bible,torah,quran says about everything and where everything started.every q has an answer if you read any of these important books to a person
    Many of us were born into religious families. We had the answers that you do, but we realised that they were wrong. We're still looking for the answers. We may never find them but we're still closer to the truth than you'll ever be.


  • #415
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    I amn't ignoring the "personal characteristics" or "particular states", I am just highlighting that they do not refer to the personal characteristics of the mind of a particular individual, or the state of mind of a particular individual. Rather what they refer to is the personal characteristics of the mind itself.

    However, I won't argue that point any further because it will become a semantic argument.


    The issue again however, is that experience is not necessarily dependent on the "personal characteristics of the mind". It is the rationalisation and explanation of the experience that is.

    Scientific theories are dependent on the personal characteristics of the mind. They may be agreed upon, but they dependent on the personal characterisitcs of the minds, of a large number of individuals.

    A pertinent issue is how the macrocosmic view is made up, and it is made up of the assembly at the microcosmic leve.



    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    Personal experiences is the only way, because anyone who seeks to verify a claim, must do so personally, using their personal experience. If someone seeks to run an experiment to verify a claim, they do so personally, and they add their claim about the truth to the original claim, which may either support it or deny it.

    The verification of a claim is ultimately just a sum of the claims, of a large number of people, based on their personal experience. Only these people can know whether or not a claim is true, through their experience. If many people agree then it is deemed to be true.


    Lets just say that I make a claim about reality. No one else here can know if I am telling the truth if they don't personally verify my claim.

    Sam Vines may carry out the experiment and deem my claim to be true. He may then report that to the rest of the people on here.

    Again, no one other than Sam can know if it is true or not.

    Maybe MatlyT carries out the same experiment and finds that the claim is true, and subsequently reports it on here.


    Now we have a position where the truth claim has been backed up by two independent experiments, that is independent of me. The thing is that the two verification experiments were just as reliant on personal experience as was my own first one, and indeed the only people who can know the truth about the claim are those who carried it out personally.


    Based on your faith in Malty T and Sam Vines, you may choose to believe that the original truth claim was true - they may have a good reputation as top scientists, and you trust their judgement.

    The thing is, you still cannot know if the claim is true or not, as MaltyT and Sam Vines could be lying to you, for whatever reason, or indeed, they may be afflicted with the same fallibility of senses that I am.


    The only way you can verify the claim is by personally carrying out the experiment yourself, and verifting the truth of the claim through your own observations and findings.


    This is a somewhat flawed example, as observations and measurements are not necessarily part of reality, but it hopefully illustrates the point.


    Morbert wrote: »
    Then we cannot say our experiences are necessarily true. Scientists accept this, so they settle for impartiality.

    I cannot explain how the digestive process works but I can tell you that I know how to digest, and I am doing it right now, after my dinner.


    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    Indeed, and as outlined above, it is only those people who carry out the experiment personally, and gain first hand personal experience, who can know if a hypothesis is true or not.

    The repeatability may lead to a better explanation, but that is not the same as knowledge, rather it is information about an experience and information about knowledge.

    A person may have the best scientific explanation of how to drive a car, but that doesn't mean they know how to actually drive a car.

    Also, it is only through the personal experience of a larger number of people that a more concise explanation is formulated, but this is still dependent on each individuals personal experience. Some may be better able to rationalise it than others, but that only means they can come up with better words to describe it.


    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    Not all experience is based on personal feelings, tastes or opinions, but all of the aforementioned trio are dependent on the mind for existence.

    Words are ultimately just [shared] opinions on how to describe something, as are numbers, symbols etc. It is the rationalisation/explanation of an experience that gets coloured by the aforementioned, which are all dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore subjective.

    My knowledge of how to drive a car is not "based on personal feelings, tastes or opinions". My rationalisation that I am a good driver or a bad driver is. Therefore my knowledge of how to drive a car (gained through personal experience) is objective, but my rationalisation of my ability is subjective.
    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.

    There aren't that many definitions, in fact the definitions that have been provided so far have seemed to conform to the OED definition, especially those more reliable sources.

    However, there does appear to be multiple misinterpretations of the definitions, and it does appear to be a common misinterpretation. However, a common misinterpretation is still a misinterpretation.


    The philosophy essay, while interesting is highly, highly debatable, not least because there is a discussion on the meaning and understanding of words, and not once is the dictionary referenced. Now, I'm not saying to stick rigidly to the definition without any discussion, but when discussing the meaning of a word, then one source that must be referenced, in order for the discussion to be granted any shred of credibility, is the dictionary. That is what dictionaries are for.


  • #416
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Sam Vines...
    ...
    Maybe MatlyT carries out the same experiment...

    Based on your faith in Malty T and Sam Vines,

    MatlyT.
    Sam Vines.
    Malty T.
    ???:confused:?????

    You're personal experience is obviously reliable alright.


  • #417
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    ayumi wrote: »
    think of it in a different way,
    so your a person living on this earth and your living working etc and then you realise that there is no meaning in life your just living, so you ask yourself,why Im I here?Am I here for something?why does the body work in that way?why is everything detailed in life?
    And then you realise that those questions don't necessarily have to have answers and get on with enjoying your life. :)


  • #418
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

    No, science deals with claims that can be tested. It doesn't matter if they are natural or supernatural, supernatural is just a point of reference after all, an conceit to our ignorance. most things in science appear supernatural at first until we find an explanation (say radiation for example)

    The issue with God is not that it is a supernatural claim it is that it is a totally untestable unmodelable claim.

    None of you guys (religious types who like to talk about going "beyond" science) have explained yet how you go about learning about something properly when you can test what you think you know.

    That is the issue with God, all "knowledge" about God is far to fuzzy to be of any use. Basically you have no idea if your knowledge is correct or not, nor any way to gauge this.


  • #419
    ayumi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭ayumi


    cant we stop arguing about this,
    . if you believe that god doesnt exist even though there are many things proving there is a god
    .if you believe there is a god then you have enough info about proving about the existness of god

    whatever you believe just live your life on what you believe and try not to get into such aruguments with people.


  • #420
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    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.

    The comparssion was to highlight the difference contexts that a word such as "seen" can be used in. If you take only one and then say people have seen Star Wars you will run into a paradox because Star Wars never actually happened, just like you run into an issue when you take "real" in one and only one context and then try and use that context when people are using it in another.

    When people say "America is a real country" they do not mean "real" in the sense that it exists as a physical entity, they are using "real" in a different context to that, in the same way that when someones says "I saw Star Wars" they do not mean they actually saw Darth Vader running around trying to kill Luke Skywalker.

    When people say "America is a real country" the context of the word "real" is that it exists as a designated country. Designated countries exists purely as abstract concepts in the minds of those who agree them. But using the word "real" in that context is perfectly fine because it means yes America is a country that has been designated as such by a group of people on Earth which is a physical place.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    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.

    True but she will also lack plenty of knowledge about it that I will have. Which, again, is why people 5000 years ago had such wacky inaccurate ideas of their bodies, because they had not clue what was actually happening when things happened, such as child birth.

    You highlight the point yourself, difference between knowledge and information. The mother will have plenty of information about the experience of childbirth, the sensations and feelings she is experiencing. But that goes quite short of knowledge about child birth.

    It is like the difference between electrocuting yourself and having a degree in electromagnetism.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    What is there to explain without experience?
    Nothing, but that isn't really the point. The whole point of the explanations is to explain the things around us, to explain our experiences.

    I've nothing against experience, but you seem to put far to much weight in the knowledge you can gain from experience alone. You gain very little if any knowledge from the experience itself. It is only when you attempt to analysise and explain the experience and others like it do you gain knowledge.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    verification is the act of confirming if something is true.
    No it isn't, verification is the act of confirming if the model we have in our head (or on paper) about how something is and behaves matches future observations (or experiences).

    You experience sharp pain in your head. You see a rock as fallen from a wall on your head. You instantly form an explanation, mostly through instinct, that a brick falling on your head is damaging to your head and thus causes the sensation of pain. You have straight away gone from experience to explanation, you have just explained your experience. This model (brick falling on head causes pain) will be tested further in the future as you have more experiences with things fall on your head to compare to the model and its predictions

    Another example is you are going into hospital to have a scan. They give you an injection of liquid to show up on the machine. This liquid (speaking from experience) gives you the experience of having peed in your pants. You instantly form a model of what has happened, this liquid they injected you with causes you to pee. You reach down and find that it isn't wet. You haven't peed your pants, despite the experience of doing so.

    Puzzled you re-evaluate your model in your head. This liquid doesn't do that. The nurse then explains to you that the liquid makes the groan head up, giving the experience of peeing your pants. Ah, your model (based on 3rd party information) is better now, though of course the nurse could just be lying to you. But still your model is better than when it was that the liquid made you pee your pants.

    This is a good example of how personal assessment of experience can be faulty, as we humans are not particularly good at testing our models, our explanations, as well as they should be tested.

    It is all very well to say that you must experience something to have knowledge of it, but often we don't have the correct knowledge of what we experience either.

    It comes down to a matter of trust, and you appear to trust your own asessment of what is happening far to much. I would trust the nurse's explanation of what is happening better than I would trust my own.

    Yes the nurse could be lying to me, but my own brain could be lying to me as well (ie be mistaken), as it was when I first thought "Oh no I'm peeing myself"

    I agree with you that people should be sceptical of what they are told by others. But they should be equally if not more sceptical of what they are told by themselves.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    How does he develop this model?
    Instinctively. The human brain is constantly modelling the world around us based on our experiences, we are constantly trying to explain our experiences.

    It often making a pretty bad job of this (hence religion) but that is a different issue (the accuracy of the model rather than the model itself)
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    How does he confirm that his model is correct i.e. how does he compare his model to what is true?

    He doesn't "compare his model to what is true" since we never know truth. He compares his model to future experiences and adjusts as necessary is the model is predicting something that does not match the experience

    A rock falls on your head and you have a sharp pain. You explain this with the model that things falling on your head hurt you.

    Then a balloon falls on your head. You don't have a sharp pain, as your earlier model might have predicted. You instinctively update your model that only heavy hard things falling on your head cause pain.

    You are probably doing this at 4 years old by instinct. But you are still doing it.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    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.

    No it isn't because as you say accuracy is determined by it's proxminity to the truth. Something can be a bit true and a bit false. Truth can only be known if you know something is 100 percent accurate, which you cannot ever know (how could you know that?)

    It may be 99 percent accurate, which means it is not true but pretty close to it. It may be 8 percent accurate which means it is a little but true but mostly false.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    What is the reason that humans never know if something they believe is true or not?
    Because we have no way of determining if our model of something is 100 percent accurate, that there is nothing left to know about something.

    Again it is like chess. If you only ever see your King move one square can you say that your model that a King piece can only ever move one square is "true"? You can't. Tomorrow you may wake up and witness a Castle move (King moves two to move behind the Castle). Your "true" model is now not actually true, it is only sort of true and sort of false.

    We can never know if something is true or not because we can never know that we have accounted for all possibilities because we can't know all possibilities.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    OK, but the above deals more with the predictions of how gravity will operate, as opposed to its existence.

    When you say "its" existence what do you mean?

    "Gravity" is a term given to a model of an observed phenomena. "Gravity" is itself a model that makes predictions. And a pretty bad model at that, we don't really know what gravity actually is, what is actually happening. We can model some basic attributes of it and thus make predictions about it but scientists have been trying for years to figure out what is actually happening with the phenomena we call "gravity"
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    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
    I couldn't agree with you more, to my mind such non-critical questioning of the models we construct goes a long way to explaining religion, spiritualism and the paranormal.

    People construct very basic models of their experience based on personal bias and then stop without attempting to test them properly and are just happy to accept these explanations because they are comforting or exciting.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    One can determing when one's mind is playing a trick on them by "questioning" their assumptions about what their mind has "told" them.

    Yes but then you get into a never ending loop. You question what your mind just told you and you determine that it was a mental illusion.

    Ok, now how do you determine what you just determined wasn't one as well?

    You are assuming you will eventually get to an answer that you can be sure is not an illusion. But that is an unfounded assumption since you only have your mind to tell you this so how can you test if it is or is not an illusion?

    It is like saying I know I lied to myself about the last 10 times but I know I'm not lying to myself now. How could you know that?


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ayumi wrote: »
    cant we stop arguing about this,
    . if you believe that god doesnt exist even though there are many things proving there is a god
    .if you believe there is a god then you have enough info about proving about the existness of god

    whatever you believe just live your life on what you believe and try not to get into such aruguments with people.

    Don't throw you toys out of the pram just because you don't like the responses to your posts (on the A & A form as well I might add).

    People apparently better skilled in the art of critical thinking than you have been taking time out to reply to your posts. You should consider this an education, and a bit of education never hurt anyone.

    Instead of getting snotty about it you should be paying attention to what they are saying, you might even learn something.


Advertisement