The Problem with Atheists

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 372
#331
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Random acts don't have decisions and choices made by humans, hence the word, "random". But I understand your problem with definitions, so I'll help you by providing one...

Random - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

The Periodic Table exists with or without humans. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be here.

Human experience is fundamentally subjective. 
You can make that claim all you want. Validating it has been you're biggest problem which you have yet to achieve. Most likely, due to your inability to understand definitions.
Topic's author
#332
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
"Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was the first to publish a recognizable periodic table in 1869"(wiki)

Therefore, the Periodic Table did not exist before 1869.

A "conscious decision" is something you anticipate and plan beforehand, therefore your decision is based on your planning and not properly "free of previous influences".  Your ability and inclination to "think ahead" is also influenced by your own personal experiences and as such is not itself "free of previous influences".

Everything and anything you might call a "decision" or "choice" is influenced by your intentional goal(s) or desire(s) which is in turn influenced by your previous experiences and your biology and your physical location.

It is logically impossible to make a decision that is free from previous influence.
#333
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
The Periodic Table existed long before humans walked the Earth, if it didn't, none of us would probably be here.

Next thing you'll be saying is the the universe didn't exist before someone came up with the idea of the universe.

Conscious decisions can happen in an instant, they don't need as much time as you claim.

My decisions, like anyone else, are based on whatever ones will decides at any given moment, despite anything that may or may not have occurred prior.

It is logically impossible to make a decision that is free from previous influence.
Yet, you fail miserably in trying to prove that.
Topic's author
#334
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
What "ones will decides at any given moment" is (EITHER) influenced by previous events (OR) indistinguishable from random.

How quickly you make a decision is irrelevant.  An expert in any field can usually make snap decisions based on their experience and training.

Experience and training is axiomatically considered "previous influence".

The fact that you are able to make a decision without planning ahead does not mean it is not influenced by previous events.

Clearly, something triggered your decision, and at a minimum this trigger is a "previous influence" that caused your decision.

Your instinct or gut reaction to a situation that demands your instant response is also not "free of previous influence".

The Periodic Table (the concept) did not exist before 1869.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but I'll grant you some slack.

Certainly we have rather strong evidence that corroborates the idea that our cosmos has been here for approximately 13.8 billion years.

However, this train of reasoning is moot, because even if our cosmos (and constituent elements) has been here a really long time, we can only observe it through our human senses, and humans are fundamentally subjective (sample biased).

Similar humans view things similarly, there is a word for this and it is called "inter-subjective".

Objectivity - Utterly free of and existing independently from any possible subjective feelings, opinions and/or any prejudice; indisputable and seen identically by all possible observers; not subject to variation, change or interpretation.

You seem to be suggesting that our universe is viewed identically by all observers throughout history and this is simply not the case.

Even science itself is subject to variation, change and interpretation.
#335
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I don't.  But being beyond description in concise or precise terminology doesn't discount existence.

Were I to sum up free will, it would be the understanding of one's circumstance, and the ability to influence one's needed outcomes through decided upon personal action.

 

As a for instance- a person whom knows they have hypertension but abstains or indulges in salty foods, appreciates the outcome of both decisions, and acts as they see fit with that knowledge considered.

Reality being objective on the whole is impossible, however certain aspects of reality can be standardized, we do this aspect pretty regularly in our lives, and it seems to work out pretty well.  
#336
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
An expert in any field can usually make snap decisions based on their experience and training.

Experience and training is axiomatically considered "previous influence".
Strawman. No one said anything about experts in the field or training.

The fact that you are able to make a decision without planning ahead does not mean it is not influenced by previous events.

Nor, was it necessarily influenced by previous events. That's a wash.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but I'll grant you some slack.
It's quite simple, chemicals and their reactions with one another have been around for longer than we have, our discovery of it does not mean it wasn't here prior. That's absurd.

humans are fundamentally subjective
A claim you have yet to support, hence it's a false premise.

You seem to be suggesting that our universe is viewed identically by all observers throughout history and this is simply not the case.
Never said anything of the sort, those are your words.

Even science itself is subject to variation, change and interpretation.
So what.


Topic's author
#337
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Anyone can usually make snap decisions based on their experience.  The desirability of the outcome is generally proportional to relevant experience they have.  But even badly informed decisions are still based on previous influences, for example, maladapted instincts.

If a decision is free of influence, it is indistinguishable from random.

Human experience is fundamentally subjective.  Humans can only experience a very limited number of things at once and have a limited memory capacity and lifespan.  This creates an inescapable sample bias.  This sample bias is incompatible with the concept of objectivity as it is commonly understood (free from bias).

(IFF) science itself is subject to variation, change and interpretation (THEN) it cannot be objective.
#338
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
If a decision is free of influence, it is indistinguishable from random.
Sorry, that's not true. It looks like you didn't even bother to understand the definition I provided above. You just make up stuff as you go along.

Human experience is fundamentally subjective.
Repeating that doesn't make it any more true.
Topic's author
#339
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FaustianJustice
No, I don't.  But being beyond description in concise or precise terminology doesn't discount existence.
Definition of exist, to have actual being; be real.
Definition of real, being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence; true and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal.

It would seem that, based on common definitions, only things with verifiable existence can be considered to properly exist.

What is unverifiable is imaginary (the realm of metaphysics and not science).

Were I to sum up free will, it would be the understanding of one's circumstance, and the ability to influence one's needed outcomes through decided upon personal action.
So would it be fair to say your concept of free will requires planning?  Would this include animals that lie in wait for prey?

Reality being objective on the whole is impossible, however certain aspects of reality can be standardized, we do this aspect pretty regularly in our lives, and it seems to work out pretty well.
Corroboration and standardization only add up to inter-subjectivity.  Quantifiable phenomenon, generally within the realm of physics and chemistry would seem to qualify as extant facts (quanta), and yet, these corroborated facts are, by definition, value-neutral.

Human activity is primarily motivated by the value maps (qualia) we overlay on top of value-neutral quanta.

The key problem with the concept of objectivity is that many people make a category error (conflating quanta and qualia) and believe that their qualia carries the same level of factual existence (and associated confidence) as (scientifically quantifiable) quanta.  This leads them to believe that they have "objective-opinions" (which is an obvious contradiction in terms) and seemingly justifies their outrage at people who disagree with them (often dismissing them as irredeemably and purely evil, disingenuous, fundamentally and incurably stupid, intellectually deaf and blind, or simply insane).
Topic's author
#340
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Humans can only experience a very limited number of things at once and have a limited memory capacity and lifespan.  This creates an inescapable sample bias.  This sample bias is incompatible with the concept of objectivity as it is commonly understood (free from bias).
#341
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
You keep making assertions and then repeating them as if they were true. I don't think you understand the concept of objectivity.


#342
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@3RU7AL
"What is unverifiable is imaginary (the realm of metaphysics and not science)." --- I didn't say unverifiable, I said beyond concise terminology.  I'm not gonna try and send a rescue mission into Plato's cave, here.  A chair can come in thousands of shapes, sizes, and descriptions, and simply stating "a thing you sit in or on" doesn't cover it either, but people don't cross reference some internal lexicon to identify a 'chair' when they see a piece of furniture to see what functions match up to a terminology.

"So would it be fair to say your concept of free will requires planning?  Would this include animals that lie in wait for prey?" ---  Some, yes.  Others, no.  Filter feeders don't really have an apparatus by which to cogitate on their surroundings, and they sit still as food wafts into them.  Spiders have a free-will in so much as they plan where they can lay a web for best results, some birds sculpt tools, etc.

With regards to your input on objective reality, you are speaking out of my paygrade, but the wrap up I like.  When I say that there exists an objective reality, but not on the whole, I am referring pretty loosely to an objective recognition of reality on the whole, one of the basal assumptions of existence.  Reality exists.  We recognize that.  Aspects of reality can be quantified.  We recognize that and adapt.  While opinions of descriptions may vary (Hot/cold, heavy/light, teal/pale blue), there is an objective standard to it (degrees, mass/weight, frequency) that doesn't need our common parlance description in order for the impetus for the description to exists.  
Topic's author
#343
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Goldtop, Please explain what you mean by "the concept of objectivity".
#344
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Definition of exist, to have actual being; be real.
Definition of real, being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence; true and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal.
Bru7, your treating "real" and "exist" as synonyms.

This resultant of your ego  narrowing your mind set, i.e. making your set of viewpoints less inclusive ergo less comprehensive.

Real estate ego royal { king } estate is occupied space we observe/quantize.

But Kings also make metaphysical-1, laws that superficially and seemingly real, absolute, locally, not Universally.

Photons { occupied space } were not quantised for thousands of years by humans. Were they real?

Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( are metaphysical i.e. beyond our ability to quantise ye they are presumed to be an occupied Space.


What exists, is four primary kinds of metaphysical;

1} spirit-1, metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concetps ergo spirit-of-intent,

---------------line-of-demarcation---------------------------

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} metaphysical-3 gravity (  ),

4} metaphysical-4 dark energy )(.

Two primary kinds of SPACE;

1} occupied, and,

2} non-occupied SPACE.

Those who allow the egos to attempt to argue rational, logical common sense truths look foolish.






Topic's author
#345
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FaustianJustice
I believe you've done a nice job of  pinpointing our apparent disagreement on terms.  A "chair" is a metaphysical concept (qualia) that is generally considered uncontroversial and recognized (as perfectly "objectively" valid) by a broad cross-section of human beings.  I would offer the example of an over-sized bean bag as an example of a possible object that some people might consider a "chair" and others may well insist that it is, and always will be, simply and over-sized bean bag.  If you ordered a thousand chairs for a business conference and the vendor delivered a thousand bean bags, well, there might be a bit of a problem.  Your example of "chair" is an excellent example of what I was trying to highlight earlier when I mentioned that many people tend to conflate quanta and qualia.  Is a hot-dog a sandwich?  Well, while some people might consider a hot-dog a type of sandwich, in general, I believe if someone asked for a sandwich and they were given a hot-dog, it probably wasn't what they were expecting.  A "sandwich" is another metaphysical concept (qualia) that is generally considered uncontroversial and recognized (as perfectly "objectively" valid) by a broad cross-section of human beings.  The reason "...people don't cross reference some internal lexicon to identify a..." metaphysical concept is because their experience has taught them that the term (under scrutiny) is generally understood within broadly accepted parameters (consensus) and further clarification would most likely be considered superfluous or even patronizing or insulting.

Like TwoMan, if you apply your definition of "free will" to any animals or insects, you neatly circumvent the thrust of my objection to the concept, which is specifically that this magical (unmeasurable, metaphysical) property only applies (in opposition to all possible logic) to adult humans.  Under your definition it would seem to be indistinguishable from "some ability to predict outcomes and adjust strategies to compensate" which I believe would apply perfectly well to computer computer programs as well, and would also be a pretty good definition of "intelligence".  I guess my main question for you on this point would be, why would you use the term "free will" instead of simply saying "intelligence"?  And I'd like to add that I believe it is important, when someone says "free will" that we clearly define exactly what the "will" is "free" from?  The term "will" is something I believe is uncontroversial and logically coherent, however the term "free" is often very misleading and exactly what it is free from must be stated explicitly.

When you say, "Reality exists" this is merely axiomatic.  While "reality" is defined as "what exists", inversely "what exists" is defined as "reality".

Definition of exist, to have actual being; be real.
Definition of real, being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence; true and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal.

It would seem that, based on common definitions, only things with verifiable existence can be considered to properly exist.

What is unverifiable is imaginary (the realm of metaphysics and not science).

When you say, "there is an objective standard to it (degrees, mass/weight, frequency) that doesn't need our common parlance description in order for the impetus for the description to exists." you seem to be glossing over the fact that "degrees", "mass", "weight", and "frequency" are also metaphysical concepts (qualia) that are generally considered uncontroversial and recognized (as perfectly "objectively" valid) by a broad cross-section of human beings.  In this sense, saying "one hundred chairs" is similar to saying "one hundred degrees".  The key difference here is simply a question of precision and specificity (rigorous definitions).

At no point is it "necessary" to leap to the conclusion that "objectivity" is "required" for any of this (conceptual framework) to work properly.
Topic's author
#346
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( are metaphysical i.e. beyond our ability to quantise ye they are presumed to be an occupied Space.
Gravity and Dark Energy are both scientifically measurable and therefore quantifiable.

Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics).

#347
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL


Gravity and Dark Energy are both scientifically measurable and therefore quantifiable.
Gravity and Dark Energy have not been quantised nor quantified. You still confused Bru7.

Ergo they remain metaphysical-3 and 4 respectively.  Your ego keeps you mind in a very narrow mind-set ergo less inclusive of what exists.

You still dont get it. Real and exist are not synonyms.

Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics).
What exists, is four primary kinds of cosmic { universal }metaphysical and you still go not grasp this primary set of four. Ego.

1} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent }, metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo spirit-of-intent, ex concept of space not actual SPACE,

---------------line-of-demarcation---------------------------

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} metaphysical-3 gravity (  ) ---positive shaped geodesic SPACE

4} metaphysical-4 dark energy )( ---negative shaped geodesic SPACE

Two primary kinds of SPACE;

1} occupied, and,

2} non-occupied SPACE.

Please attempt to place you ego aside and  not attempt to offer irrational, illogical logical lack of common sense comments, that do not address  the rational, logical common sense truths Ive clearly laid out. Makes you look foolish. 


What is real is physical/energy ergo Observed Time as fermions, bosons and a new 3rd catagory.  Fermionas and bosons are commonly associated with a sine-wave pattern frequency. /\/\/  or as ^v^v.

This sine-wave pattern develops via my prime number numerical pattering as a resultant of inversion-outversions of gravity and dark energy.

This Euclidean sine-wave pattern also occurs with transformations  of the cubo-octahedron as seen via Fullers jitterbug transformations of the cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron aka operating system of Universe.


My prime number numerical pattern, when transformed into a torus, we have the basic spiral pattern as seen with a slinky toy, with addition of the internal sine-wave patther, that also is a spiral pattern.

I think this is basis for why we have spiral RNA-DNA.

1070 days later

Topic's author
#348
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
The three you listed aren't the only ones. Abiogenesis is another.
Great point.
#349
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you ever gotten one of them to see the lack of logic in those concepts?
Topic's author
#350
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Have you ever gotten one of them to see the lack of logic in those concepts?
I'm reaching my quota at about one a year.
#351
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Pat yourself on the back. That's pretty good.
Topic's author
#352
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Pat yourself on the back. That's pretty good.
I've calculated that at this rate, if each of my converts also convert one person a year, in about 31 years the entire planet will be 100% LOGICZOMBIES.

8 next year.

16 in 2023

32 in 2024

64 in 2025

128 in 2026

2,097,152 in 2040

2,147,483,648 in 2050

8,589,934,592 in 2052
#353
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Whoo hoo! In 2050 you start to see the fruits of your labor and win the Nobel! Ah, a world where no one thinks men can be women! Too bad I won't be here for it!

Mention me in your acceptance speech, ok?
#354
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,306
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Definition of exist, to have actual being; be real.

Does mind exist? 

Do concepts exist? 

How much does a concept of a triangle weigh?  How much mass?  How much charge?  Color? Frequency?

How much does a concept of a square weight? ""...............................""........................................""

Does any concept have a diameter-radius?  What is it?

3ru Added 10.12.18 ...09:47AM...." Gravity and Dark Energy are both scientifically measurable and therefore quantifiable.

Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics). "...

Ultra-micro Gravity and ultra-micro Dark Energy have been niether quantised nor quantified ergo metaphysical- 3 and 4 respectively.

Concepts are Meta{beyond}-space { Spirit-1 }. I formerly called the Metaphsical-1/Spirit-1, but I recently revised this part of my Cosmic Trinary Outline.


Topic's author
#355
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Mention me in your acceptance speech, ok?
I'm pretty sure hero-worship will be obliterated.
Topic's author
#356
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Are you perhaps familiar with the distinction between CONCRETE NOUNS and ABSTRACT NOUNS ?
#357
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,306
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you perhaps familiar with the distinction between CONCRETE NOUNS and ABSTRACT NOUNS ?
Ive poured concrete may times.  First it liquid then becomes a solid.

Ive spoken and written nouns many times. ---LINK to Bucky Fullers book "I Seem to Be a Verb"---

3ru, you did not answer any of the questions I asked you.  Why is that? 

Are you afraid of truth and Is that why you did not answer the queries put to you?

I know you a person great philosophical and educated abiliites, yet you avoid answering relatively simple question.

I will try again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does mind exist?  I understand is not real and that is not my question.

Do concepts exist? 

How much does a concept of a triangle weigh?  How much mass?  How much charge?  Color? Frequency?

How much does a concept of a square weight? ""...............................""........................................""

Does any concept have a diameter-radius?  What is it?

3ru Added 10.12.18 ...09:47AM...." Gravity and Dark Energy are both scientifically measurable and therefore quantifiable.

Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics). "...

Ultra-micro Gravity and ultra-micro Dark Energy have been niether quantised nor quantified ergo metaphysical- 3 and 4 respectively.

Concepts are Meta{beyond}-space { Spirit-1 }. I formerly called the Metaphsical-1/Spirit-1, but I recently revised this part of my Cosmic Trinary Outline.



Topic's author
#358
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
3ru, you did not answer any of the questions I asked you.  Why is that? 
Your questions fail to make your definition of "exist" explicit.
#359
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,306
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Your questions fail to make your definition of "exist" explicit.
Is this following an "explicit"?

.." exist : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions strange ideas existed in his mind "...

..." to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood: "...


..." Word origin
C17: from Latin exsistere to step forth, from ex-1 + sistere to stand "... ergo to present this that or other whereas other can be a concept --to present you with a concept/idea ---


.." Synonyms and related words

exist go without saying (that) "........... i.e. truth is a concept ex do we believe the concept being conveyed/transmitted/relayed to us is true/truth ex or just a concept of fantasy that does not exist in real world { finite occupied space Universe } and only exists in the conceptual { Meta-space } world.

>>> 3ru, does intellect exist? <<<< * i *

Does intellect exist on Earth?

Does intellect exist in Universe?

Does intellect exist in complement to the finite, occupied space Universe?



Topic's author
#360
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,684
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
None of those definitions make a clear distinction between the CONCRETE NOUN and the ABSTRACT NOUN.

And are therefore invalid.

By your definition, an idea can "exist" (lochnessbigfootunicornspacealiens) with the same validity as a planet.