Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're using semantics to make a rather sophistic argument. Once again, replication of the results is intended to reduce variables, namely demonstrating that results can be reproduced independent of the experiment's conductor. Agreement doesn't matter; Reproducing the result does.Corroboration is de facto consensus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm starting to suspect we agree more than we disagree.Let me try this again.The parts of the elephant the blind men can detect are real, factual, scientifically verifiable, Quanta.The parts of the elephant the blind men can (not necessarily accurately) infer are abstract, imaginary, hypothetical, metaphysical, Qualia.The parts of the elephant the blind men NEVER detect is noumenon.
This makes no sense. If there are parts the blind men can never detect, then they cannot posit the existence of the parts which they haven't identified, much less name them. The issue with extending the line of reasoning from the parable you cited is that the parable makes it clear that they received information from independent observers who presumably can see. Without the independent observation, then there's no informed reason to propose this:
The parts of the elephant the blind men can (not necessarily accurately) infer are abstract, imaginary, hypothetical, metaphysical, Qualia.
where "not necessarily accurate" must be omitted since there's no identifiable, independent information to which it can be related. Thus the difference between that which you consider Quanta and Qualia is (epistemologically) insubstantial at best.
But back to the point of contention. There is a very important distinction between Reality and Imagination.
What is your reality without the abstract? How could you possibly control for that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Like the blind men observing the elephant, we are prone to different interpretations of the "whole" because none of us can see the entirety.
Except, I'm not outright rejecting your notions. I'm rejecting your pigeonholing. If we were to use the analogy, it'd be akin to my saying that the whole elephant represents existence, and your saying that "no, only the trunk represents existence, given that it's the only part of the elephant which has a verifiable function." And then when I press on to ask about its other body parts (e.g. brain, ears, tail, etc.) you go onto say that it's abstract and that the elephant in its entirety represents "Noumenon," which hasn't given you pause to refrain from positing "practical distinctions." I'm not one of the men arguing with you over different body parts; I'm the one stating that these parts are apart of the elephant, and making these distinctions doesn't change that it's an elephant. (I'd even go as far as to say that some if not all of these parts are intertwined, e.g. "brain" and "trunk.")
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The concepts of "that which is not currently known" and "that which can't be known" are specifically relevant to epistemological limits.
I don't deny it's relevance in understanding the limits of an epistemological argument or statement; I deny it's significance to the argument itself which is epistemological in nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Except the "unknown" can be partitioned into "that which is yet to be known," and "that which can't be known." Noumenon relates to the latter as it posits existence of events independent of the senses and/or perception, making it epistemologically insignificant. Your statement relates to the former given that you characterize our sample-biased, "more than guesses" conclusions as provisional. It may be that one is incidentally "accurate," but that's clearly ontological not epistemological.It is an acknowledgement of the unknown which renders our sample-biased, provisional conclusions, little more than mere guesses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please disentangle corroborate and consensus.
I never entangled them. Reproducing/replicating the results of any experiment is intended to reduce as many variables as possible/necessary and isolate the results. Whether this happens does not depend on "consensus." Consensus provides only a standard for publishing data. One is a method (replication,) the other is regulation (consensus.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What significance is that?It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't validate your own science.Any replication (by not yourself) is de facto "peer review"
Yes, but that's not "consensus." Having results replicated (by someone other than oneself) provides a control. It's not "consensus" that validates the result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.Noumenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
True. But that's neither "peer review" nor "consensus." That's reproducibility/replication of results.If your "discovery" or "findings" or "results" are not duplicatable, then they are not considered valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Elaborate. If abstract and concrete are distinctions, what would you call the fundamental "substance" to which they both belong? If existence, according to you, indicates the concrete, and imaginary indicates the abstract, then what do you call that which encapsulates them both?It's just like the practical distinction between "red" and "blue".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A key component of the scientific method is peer review (consensus).
Peer review is not a key component in the scientific method. It's a standard of publishing data in academia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not suggesting that abstract imagination is "nothingness".
Then what are you suggesting? If you're suggesting abstract imagination isn't nothing, then you at the very least acknowledge that abstract imagination is something.
I'm simply making the definition of "exist" explicitly (scientifically) verifiable and real (not imaginary or abstract).
So semantics? You solicited my "preferred" definition, and proceeded to challenge my arguments using yours? (And where is "verifiable." I didn't see it in your link.)
It's a practical distinction, not a fundamental distinction.
So what is fundamental? If you're claiming that abstract and concrete are merely practical distinctions, to which "sphere," for lack of a better term, do they belong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@3RU7AL
@janesix:
I agree. But I'm not sure why.
Consensus informs only itself, i.e. there are however many people who agree to or share this belief/experience. Any other conclusions deduced from those parameters would lack sound reason.
If your aim requires cooperation with other humans, then (scientific and moral) consensus is a prerequisite goal.
Inductively, yes. Deductively, no. Considering that the question proposed by janesix is "Is [consensus reality] the only valid reality?" the logic of which we speak is deductive.
Also explain how consensus is a requisite for Science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) substance dualism is true (THEN) natural and supernatural cannot possibly interact (THEREFORE) de facto monism is true.(IFF) natural and supernatural CAN interact (THEN) substance dualism is FALSE (THEREFORE) monism is true.
Well, I wouldn't word it "natural" and "supernatural," but the first statement is true only in epistemological considerations rather than ontological. Hence, I lean toward subjective idealism and epistemological solipsism. My internal debate is a fool's errand in resolving the epistemological vs ontological debate. Your bringing this up, however, is actually quite pertinent to our discussion. Sustaining the aforementioned statements you brought up, what is the epistemological significance in differentiating "concrete" and "abstract" as it concerns existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Is it the only valid reality?
No. Logically, consensus and validity are not intertwined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yeah, the one thing that really vexes me about My Hero Academia is the emotional masturbation that frequently ensues. There's no substantial conflict between characters; almost every character just praises the other's abilities (Bakugo being among the exceptions.) And, I'd like to say that many of the characters have "plot armor," but that would be understating it; it's more like a "plot fortress." Furthermore, it's hard to portray Midoriya as the "underdog" when he's been the strongest among his classmates, if not U.A., for 90% of the story.
If I had to choose a single anime, I choose Cowboy Bebop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheAtheist
@3RU7AL
Abstract, not concrete
What's the difference between abstract and imaginary? What's the difference between concrete and material?
Because they are logically coherent and verifiable.
Pending your explanation, logic and veracity are imaginary. The standard by which you determined something concrete and "real" is imaginary. How can the "real" and the "imaginary" coexist?
When abstract concepts demonstrate practical application, this proves their efficacy.
Once again: efficacious toward what? Your imagination? What does it prove?
You observe water running down a hill.
I observe matter. Everything else is "imaginary."
You form a hypothesis "perhaps I can divert that water by digging a canal". Then you test that hypothesis.
Things like "divert" and "dig" are all in my head. The only thing i can really test for is material composition--if that--since the imaginary, as you state below, cannot exist in a real, concrete, and verifiable manner.
Things in your imagination do not exist in a real, concrete and verifiable manner.
Are we modifying our description of existence now? If they don't exist in a "real, concrete, and verifiable manner," then do they exist at all?
There is a very clear difference between what is concrete and what is abstract.
Don't merely state that "there is a very clear difference..." Establish that difference.
Apparently your brain can make useful predictions. These predictions are not real, but are instead ABSTRACT and IMAGINARY.
So our brains are the nexus? If the abstract can serve practical uses, then what is the epistemological significance in differentiating "concrete" and "abstract" as it concerns existence?
(Once again, I'm being purposefully facetious. I know the argument you've been attempting to state. But you've been undermining it by teetering between two descriptions of existence. Rather than merely tell you that your argument makes little--if any---sense we're going to hash out your reasoning here, and demonstrate that it makes little--if any--sense.
@TheAtheist
Do you believe in solipsism?
I lean toward subjective idealism and epistemological solipsism. I've been having an internal debate for years with dualism, but have yet to come to a resolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean, you don't "concern" yourself with how?'
It means exactly how I stated it: I don't concern myself with "how." Vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, somatosensation, cognition, etc. It makes no difference to me.
Do you see God, hear God, feel God, or what? Why are you being evasive? It's pretty straightforward. There are very few means of perception.
I'm not being evasive. You're looking for something that's not there. You are far more concerned with how I perceive than I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether or not an extra-human creator actually exists is unknown and therefore cannot be discounted as a possible hypothesis. It's a Catch 22 situation; one cannot disprove something that cannot be proven.
Thus, it's epistemologically insignificant.
if you consider logically and rationally, such a being would surely be far more intelligent and sensible, than the central character of the biblical tales is portrayed as being.
Logic and reason is oft not considered when giving an impression, and yours is no different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@keithprosser
@TheAtheist
@janesix:
I've not said that it's irrelevant to you or anyone else. I said that it's irrelevant to me because it is. I don't concern myself with "how."
@keithprosser
You post pretentious nonsense.
Ah, the tone argument. "When all else fails...," I guess.
@TheAtheist
I would love to have this discussion about reality with you elsewhere, not on this topic.
It's unavoidable; your concept of reality serves as a basis of your argument as mine does for my argument. We can discuss it elsewhere, but it will come up regardless.
It's getting too crowded for me to reply to everyone that posts here.
That is the nature of the beast you created.
Maybe I could create a separate topic about what we are discussing? What do you think the name of that topic should be?
You can name it "Existence," or "Mind vs Matter," or "God: a history or legend?" As long as it suffices in meeting the parameters of that which you consider relevant, I'll participate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@keithprosser
@disgusted
@janesix:
Do you mind if I ask how, specifically?
The "how" is irrelevant to me.
@disgusted
You must mean conceive since that is the discussion, if you don't then your god doesn't exist because it can't be perceived.
Conception and perception aren't mutually exclusive.
Meaning all gods exist as do Leprechauns and Cyclops, intergalactic spacecraft exist along with time travel
Yes.
Your world must be incredible, where is it?
My apologies. Only those who sustain a grasp of a consistent logic can ascertain its location.
@keithprosser
That would explain some of his posting style... if you can plainly see (ie 'perceive') something - such as God - you are not going to be impressed by any one who says it doesn't exist - ie atheists.
Posting style? I'm not "unimpressed" by atheists in and of themselves; I'm unimpressed by atheism; I'm "unimpressed" by the materialist rationalizations and the unsubstantiated ontological statements of some atheists; I'm "unimpressed" by the logical inconsistency; I'm "unimpressed" by the flip-flop descriptions and semantic gymnastics. If one can provide a logically consistent argument that is logically consistent without switching descriptions at whim while substantiating their ontological statements, then I'd be "impressed." But as I've told Brutal and TheAtheist, "impressions have no place in a debate," not even my own. So would you like to explain the relevance my "posting style" has in this discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
How do you define perceive?
to experience through organizing sensory information and the information in consciousness (e.g. thoughts, intuition, rationality, etc.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yes.It seems to be saying that because god is perceived then god must exist
It is hard to criticise your argument when it's not clear what it is.
When you construct the argument properly, it should become clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If that is what I meant then I would have said that!
Fair enough. As far as the record is concerned, you too will sustain a logically inconsistent argument.
what you are saying is that god exists because we have the idea of god
No.
If don't think that is right, nor do I think it is wrong in an interesting way
You've declared no concerns thus far about inconsistency; that much is clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Your phrasing is not the issue; your logical consistency is. You're using two distinct descriptions of existence in the very same argument. You're stating concepts can exist while simultaneously stating that they can't exist. You believe that by partitioning existence into "imaginary" and "reality" that you've somehow reconciled this inconsistency. You haven't. Because, you're still stating that one of the partitions does not exist even though it's a partition of existence.I think I'm going to have to change my phrasing a bit. Something can either exist in reality or exist in our imagination. The concept of God, for example, exists in our imagination. God, if he were to exist, would have to exist in reality. Something cannot exist both in reality and in imagination at the same time. So while the concept of God exists in our imagination, the concept of God does not exist in the real world. And while God may or may not exist in reality, he does not exist inside our imagination, only the concept of him does.
I'm sure we would both agree that God does not follow the rules of our reality, for example he can create something out of nothing and has omniscience and omnipotence. Therefore, God cannot exist in our reality, because if God were to exist he would break the rules of that reality. So, that means God does not exist
This is the most logically fallacious argument I've seen thus far. "The rules" of that reality don't exist because the concepts on which they're based are not of that reality, according to your rationale. And once again, stay focused. We're not arguing totum pro parte and parsing through aspects. We are discussing existence.
Therefore, only the concept of God exists, and that concept exists only in our imagination. Does this sound logical to you, or no?
No. Because it's not logical at all. You believe you've made a distinction between the "concept of God" and "God." Everything you perceive in your experience is subject to your thoughts, even the "reality" you claim exists outside of it. Even your physical senses are rationalized through your thoughts. How do you discern the differences between vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, and somatosensation without your thoughts? How do you know they even exist? You can cite brain scans, but even then, processing that information must be subject to thought. How are "the rules of reality" determined without thought? Let me guess, you read someone's thoughts about how reality works (a concept) and believed them. They were able to delineate information using science (a concept) and reason (another concept) in a manner which you value (yet another concept.) You think that you've created a substantial distinction by creating these partitions. Rather, in "reality," you've only proposed, as I already told keithprosser, an epistemological insignificance. Your mind is chief in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
The content of someone's mind does not exist in the real world. Just because you can perceive God does not mean that God is real. You finally understand my argument, you did it Athias!
I've always understood your argument. Your argument, however, is logically inconsistent. The issue is that you don't understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Yes, concepts do not exist in the real world.
Okay, hold on to this thought.
They only exist inside our minds.
Once again, your arguments contradict:
If something exists, it has an objective reality of being.
Therefore, this statement here you made:
They only exist inside our minds
is only true if the content of our minds has objective real being, making this statement:
Existing in reality and existing inside our mind are two different things
completely false.
It's not "silly." The logic of your argument is tenuous; The logic of my argument is unyielding; thus my arguments can deconstruct your statements to a tee and elucidate the rationales of which you yourself are unwitting.
Plus, a concept is different from the actual thing.
Keep your focus on the discussion we're having. We are not discussing "things," whatever its meaning. We're discussing existence.
Just because the concept of God exists inside my mind does not mean that God exists in the real world.
According to you, in order for something to exist, it must be of the real world. So which is it? Be careful not to backpedal.
You're acting like you've disproved all my arguments wrong but you're just asking me silly questions.
You have no evidence of how I'm "acting like." And as I've told Brutal, impressions have no place in a debate. Furthermore, I did not have to falsify your arguments; your contradictions undermined your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
'X' and the 'concept of X' are distinct. It is obvious that in many, many cases the concept of X exists but X does not exist
You think this makes sense, but it does not. The concept x does not hold without x. You mean to say that there's a distinction between a material x and an immaterial x, and that an immaterial x can exist even if a material x doesn't. This isn't necessarily true, but it provides a more substantial line of reasoning to your original statement.
Sherlock Holmes is an example.
No, he isn't. If I were to ask you, "what does Sherlock Holmes look like?" you'd be able to tell me.
The concept-of-God exists in all our brains/minds, but that is not much help for determining if God per se exists.
Once again, this makes no sense. If God does not exist, then how does a nonexistent conception of a nonexistent entity exist? Your arguments contradict each other because, much like TheAtheist's argument, you've incorporated two distinct descriptions of existence in the very same argument. Choose one and provide an argument consistent with that description. Either the content of one's mind does not exist, making everything one thinks nonexistent, including the concept of understanding anything (e.g. materialism,) or the content of one's mind does exist, making everything one thinks exists, including Sauron, numbers, scientific law, and Sherlock Holmes. Thus, the distinction between material and immaterial existence is nothing more than an epistemological insignificance proposed by atheists.
Once again, one cannot perceive that which does not exist, therefore everything one perceives must exist. This is axiomatic (though feel free to attempt a refutation.) It's roughly in the same vein as Rene Descartes' conception of "Je pense donc Je suis" (I think; therefore, I am.) I'll state this once more: many atheists, especially many of those whom I've encountered--including this forum--are neither rationalists, nor logicians. Many of them are materialist ideologues whose grasp of logic is tenuous at best, and at the very least, a bastardized logic. Rely on logical consistency rather than convoluted semantic gymnastics, and understanding God's existence should become a simpler task.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
If something exists, it has an objective reality of being. Numbers do not have an objective reality of being. Sauron does not have an objective reality of being. Scientific laws do not have an objective reality of being. These are all concepts created by human beings. The concept of numbers exists inside our minds, the concept of Sauron exists inside our minds, and the concept of scientific laws exists inside our mind. There is no actual Sauron living inside the mind of a LOTR fan, it's just the concept of him. Same thing with God: the concept of God exists. But that does not mean God actually exists in the real world.
Your statements are only furthering your contradictions. You just said that, "if something [were to] exist, it [would have] an objective real being." According to your rationale, concepts don't exist. In other words, concepts "exist" in nothing and/or nowhere. By claiming that concepts exist "inside our minds," you are asserting one of two things: (1) either the content of our minds have objective real being, or (2) your description of existence doesn't suffice, presuming of course that "objective reality of being" is subject to your materialist standard.
The irony is, your understanding of that which is "real" (material) is almost, if not entirely based on that which you claim "isn't real" (immaterial.) Explain to me, while incorporating logical consistency, how that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Athias,Your response to my question of Logically and rationally, which God does matter was: "all Gods."As if your faith isn't muddled enough, then when you proffer that ALL GODS are the cause of your beliefs, then said Gods of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Age ALL CONTRADICT each other in their said doctrines! Therefore, your foundation of your belief is comical at best because of the logical ramifications of this fact!
Strawman argument. I never once stated that any God was the cause of my beliefs. In fact, I made a statement to the contrary:
p: I can believe God exists.q: Therefore, I do believe God exists.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you ever heard of a computer?Do you understand that they operate using mathematical principles?
How can that be? Mathematics is make-believe. How can you be so certain that these principles were used if they're imaginary? Aren't you just looking at a proverbial inkblot of matter and "naming" it a "computer" and saying that you "used mathematical principles"? What use does your imagination have in anything other than perpetuating the unjustifiable folly of your imagination?
(And in case it's not obvious, I'm being purposefully facetious here. There's a point you're implicitly making here, but if you outright acknowledge it, you'll undermine your entire argument. Let's see how honest your intellectual honesty is.)
The efficacy of mathematics and the scientific method is demonstrable.
Imaginary and purely abstract concepts can demonstrate nothing--nothing physical or material at least. They don't exist, right? How does the nonexistent interact with and influence the existent and vice versa? Is there a nexus? Who or what is this nexus? And what does that mean for the nexus? Does it exist or does it not exist? Or is it entirely irrelevant?
(There's a method to this madness, and logical consistency makes that clear. You need only employ it to understand.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your naked assertions are not arguments either.
I haven't made any naked assertions. But dwelling on this would only perpetuate regress. If you want to do that, you can do that on your own.
Perhaps we might engage in a civil conversation?
Have I been uncivil? Where have I exhibited poor conduct, poor manners, or impoliteness? "Seem" is not an argument. I'm not saying that to be impolite; I'm saying that to provide you information. Whenever I see the word, "seem" in an argument, I almost always make to sure to point out that it has no place in an argument. That's not "uncivil"; that's intellectual honesty, albeit blunt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Numbers, mathematics, and scientific laws are purely abstract and imaginary.
So they're "pretend-make-believe"?
HowEVer, they have demonstrable EFFICACY.
Efficacious toward what?
They are logically coherent, rigorously defined and Quantifiable.
All of which can be reduced to "purely abstract and imaginary," rigor notwithstanding, yes? Or in other words, they're still just "pretend-make-believe"?
This is in distinct contrast to your Qualitative experience of believing in god(s).
The contrast is rooted in your subjective values, and that's fine for you. It makes it neither consistent nor less fallacious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@BrotherDThomas
@TheAtheist
p: I can believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists.q: Therefore, I do believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists.This seems indistinguishable from pure imagination.
Seem is not an argument; seem is your impression.
Can you please provide your preferred definition of "exists"?
to be.
@TheAtheist:
Yes, how hard is this to understand? Numbers are pretend-make-believe! The concept of numbers has been created by humans and they do not exist in our world. Why are you still using this bullshit argument?
You do realize that I didn't forward this argument to you? So there's no "still" as it concerns your discussion with me. Pay more attention to your own comments and the responses to them, and you'll find yourself being less redundant. And, it's not a bullshit argument. Your grasp of logic, as I've stated before is bastardized, presumably by your materialist dogma. Your logic is inconsistent as I've shown. You do believe numbers exist("in our brains.") So until you reconcile that faulty premise with your materialist standards, I'll await a more cogent response.
@BrotherDThomas:
Since your comical Confucianism revolves around the pursuit of the unity of the individual self AND the God of Heaven, I will ask you which one of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages God does your belief believe in? This is a very simple question, even though “The Atheist” can’t address it thus far regarding my post #34 to him.Logically and rationally, which God does matter, get it?
All of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Nonsense. Your claim that atheists must believe in God because they argue against his existence is a complete non-sequitur. Just because we gave a name and description to something does not mean that that something exists.
That's exactly its meaning. Because by giving God description, you're indicating your perception of God. You're indicating that you can perceive God in some form. Here's another axiom: p - one cannot perceive that which does not exist, q - therefore, everything one perceives must exist. This logic is irrefutable and serves as the death knell of atheist reasoning. In other words, if God did not exist then you would not know that God did not exist because you're incapable of perceiving God's nonexistence. And if you claim to be able to perceive the nonexistent, then the nonexistent must be existent, contradicting and refuting your own argument.
Humans gave a name and description to Sauron from Lord of The Rings, but I'm sure we both are pretty certain that Sauron does not exist.
Sauron does exist. If I were to ask you: why do you believe Sauron does not exist? I bet it will be confined to a materialist standard, informing my point that you and many other "Gnostic" atheists are neither rationalists, nor logicians. You're dogmatic proponents of a philosophy which gives the description "reality" to material composition, the irony of which is that most if not all concepts of the physical sciences are rooted in abstract mathematics, as we will see here:
Why do you want me to prove something that is wrong? Numbers do not exist. They are immaterial.
Do you see my point? But hold on to this thought.
Numbers are a human concept created by humans and than concept exists solely inside our brains.
No they do not. According to your rationale, "Numbers do no exist." So, they wouldn't even exist "inside our brains." Which is it? Do they exist, or do they not? Are you perhaps suggesting that they exist in some other form, thereby acknowledging other forms of existence?
There can be a number of something material, for example five soccer balls, but the number five itself does not exist.
No. The number does not exist therefore, there can be nothing--only the matter you name soccer balls. If you're going to argue on that premise, then make sure your arguments are consistent with it.
but the number five itself does not exist.
Therefore, the description would not exist. There would be no such thing as "five soccer balls." So that would beg the question, why did you initiate a belief in five soccer balls existing?
In fact, if there was proof that numbers actually existed, that would be evidence for the existence of God and not against his existence.
Depends on the standard. Materialists standards would likely not inform God's existence even with a proof of numbers.
Oh, and by the way, by claiming that numbers don't exist, you're asserting that all scientific laws don't exist. Chiefly, mathematical proof distinguishes scientific laws from all other concepts in Science. So here's a syllogism:
MP: Numbers don't exist.
Mp: Mathematics does not exist
C: Therefore, Scientific Laws don't exist.
If you can countermand this logic, I'll welcome you to it.
An axiom must always be true and can be applied to anyone. I am considered anyone, so your axiom can certainly be used to determine my beliefs.Let's test your axiom on me:p: I can believe God exists.q: Therefore, I do believe God exists.Hmmm... I don't believe that God exists.
Your reasoning hasn't sufficiently demonstrated that you don't believe God exists. You've entertained the notion of immaterial existence to the detriment of your argument, undermining the premise of your contention against God's existence. Not to mention, your reasoning as I've demonstrated above is inconsistent. There's nothing wrong with my use of logic, but everything is wrong with yours.
Get rekt.
This is no youtube argument, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't conflate "exist" (in reality) with "pure imagination".
I've conflated nothing. You've taken no measures to grasp the context in which I submit my statements; hence you frequently argue non sequitur. And "exist" is not confined to material description.
The statement "exists in your mind" is indistinguishable from "pretend-make-believe".
I'll entertain this: let's suppose that "exists in one's mind" is the same as "pretend-make-believe," are numbers then "pretend-make-believe"?
When you confuse Qualia for Quanta,
I haven't confused Qualia with "Quanta." I just don't pigeonhole reality to "Quanta."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're claiming that "because I can" is an AXIOM?
Yes.
Please expose your other AXIOMS and arrange them in a way that forms a logical statement.
My statement made that arrangement clear.
p: I can believe God exists.
q: Therefore, I do believe God exists.
Hack away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
This is what religion does to people, it completely destroys their internal logic and rational thought.
If anything, I'm the only person here who has used consistent and sound logic. I've not seen a single argument from an atheist since joining this forum that employed consistent logic. You're neither rationalists nor logicians. You're materialists. And your understanding of logic and reason is at best bastardized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheAtheist
Exactly. According to Athias's argument, I have the ability to believe that Athias is an idiot. Therefore, Athias must be an idiot because I can believe that he is one.
Yes, a version of me influenced by your perception of me as "an idiot" would exist, if only in your mind. But it still exists. The logic is not that difficult to comprehend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@disgusted
@TheAtheist
"Mere Statement" = "Naked Assertion"
"Because I can" is not the argument. It's an a priori statement which serves as the basis, rationale, and justification of my belief. Semantics while sometimes useful mean nothing if you don't grasp the context in which an author of a statement submits said statement.
@TheAtheist
If the ability to believe in God was a reason to believe in God, then everybody who has that ability would do so.
But everyone does. Even you, so-called atheists, give form to that which you claim does not exist. How does one give a name and description to that which does not exist? How does one interact with that which does not exist? If you're going to claim that God does not exist because his description whether it be from the many versions of the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran etc. has no demonstrable or observable material evidence, then be consistent. I would then ask why the very material standards on which you premise your arguments against "God" also incorporate the "nonexistent," i.e. numbers? Prove to me that the number two "exists"--i.e. has material composition--and I'll stop believing that God exists.
"Just because I can" is not a valid reason to do something.
Actually it is. You are arguing non sequitur. You're presuming that I'm arguing a logical biconditional. I'm not. My statement is rather simple, because at the very least, it evokes a simple explanation.
@disgusted:
Who are you? Have we conversed before?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see, you prefer naked assertion. Thanks for clearing that up.
It's not a "naked assertion." it requires no more proof than my mere statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would it be fair to say you believe, "you can't disprove an afterlife, therefore it might be (or probably is) real"?
Don't project your fallacious logic in some non sequitur. Fallacious logic is fallacious logic even when the argument is inverted. But, I already know where you're headed with this, so if you seek to know that which is fair to state about my beliefs, I've already said it, "Why do I believe a deity, specifically God, exists? Because I can." That is my basis, rationale, and justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
LACK of evidence is not proof of an afterlife.LACK of evidence is not proof of bigfoot.LACK of evidence is not proof of space aliens.LACK of evidence is not proof of a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars.
Pure sophistry. Regurgitating converse arguments as if anyone here but you proposed that the "lack" of anything substantiated an argument is not just inept but also demonstrative of your "lack" of understanding of your own statement:
It's more of an overwhelming LACK of evidence.All versions of an afterlife are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
In order to justifiably BELIEVE something, you must have Quantifiable positive evidence or a logically rigorous proof
That's fine for you. Whether you qualify it with "justifiable" makes no difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@3RU7AL
@TheAtheist
@janesix:
What evidence, specifically? You are being vague.
He has that which he assumes/believes is "3.5 billion" years of "evidence."
@3RU7AL:
It's more of an overwhelming LACK of evidence.All versions of an afterlife are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
That's logically fallacious reasoning. "Lack" of evidence is not proof regardless of how you disguise it in these semantic stunts.
@TheAtheist:
Why do I believe a deity, specifically God, exists? Because I can. Like most modern atheists, I presume you subscribe to a strict materialist description of reality. The irony is, the fundamental concepts of the physical sciences are based on abstracts, namely mathematics. I'll take an atheist's/materialist's reasoning seriously when one can prove that the number two exists in accordance to their standards, i.e. has observable evidence of its material composition. Or, in other words, the number two isn't a "pure fantasy."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Professor Michael Thompson also talks extensively about how the social norms that boys are exposed to, the need to be cool, manly, strong, and others; are raising generations of boys that end up being and lonely: which i suspect is possibly part of reason why suicide and drug abuse disproportionately affect males.
I suspect that the exposure to the need of being "cool, manly, and strong" creates a sense of loneliness because this behavior and/or exhibited traits have recently been stigmatized. Boys are no less social beings, so marginalizing them as "toxic" (toxic masculinity) will take its toll.
In Raising Cain, the professor went into a lot of detail about the importance of the emotions education of boys in school and how it’s lack plays a big part the overall lack of emotional well being in men growing up.
That's not a school's responsibility; that's a parent's responsibility. Nowadays, the public school system is nothing more than glorified daycare allowing some parents to often shirk their responsibilities.
Secondly; having a small child of my own, I am excruciatingly aware of the inherent gender bias in almost every aspect of life from the moment you are born. From language, to clothing to the close they’re given.
One's sex primarily indicates one's role in reproduction. And sex as a means to reproduction is therefore very important in social interaction. So it's no surprise that these nuances manifest in the form of bias.
If boys are given cars and LEGO and encourage to build things: and girls are given dolls and are told to take care of them: and are discouraged from doing the opposite - is it any surprise that boy end up being better at, say, spatial awareness? It appears at least meta studies seem to back this up.Even little things; studies have shown parents talk more to girls, and count more with boys - so it’s difficult to really sepearate what boys naturally are from what they have been taught to be.
Is it? If one is going to speak to some nebulous culture which teaches boys and girls to adopt artificially created roles, then one has to ask: who or what created this culture? Was it one person? Was it a group of people? How did it come to be? Could it be that this culture is "natural"? That is these constellations of gender-based behaviors reflect biological imperative (e.g. a woman being more selective in choosing mates because her reproductive prospects are heavily influenced by the amount of eggs she has and her gestational terms.)
I think the issue with school is that they are becomming more diruption and risk intolerant. Meaning less cool games, and more reliant on drastic intervention to solve education problems: not solving the root cause of whatever behavioural problem maybe Driving suspension and expulsion. There are also idiot teachers who grotesquely interact.
I agree in some part. Though, I think one of the primary issues affecting boys in public school is the blatant attempt to "feminize" not only the social environments, but also the academic standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So in other words, an assumption? That accounts for 99% of "our evolution" as well.It would seem that superstition was expanded and religion further imagined because both heavenly lights and flickering fire have been sacralized. This does seem to be somewhat supported by a researcher who spent 40 years studying African Bushmen who gathered evidence of the importance of gathering around a nighttime campfire as a time for bonding, social information, and shared emotions with fireside tales. This may provide a correlation that our prehistoric ancestors likely lived in a similar way to how the Bushmen currently do. Although, we cannot directly peer into the past or fully know the past from the indigenous Bushmen, these people do live in a way that our ancient ancestors lived for around 99% of our evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Names denote objects and are a human invention. Names are convenient and useful but not perfect - as you point out they are sometimes ambiguous.As I am not sure what is in dispute I don't know what to say!
You stated this:
'God' is a 3-letter word; more precisely it is the sort of word we call a name. We use names to denote a particular object.The object denoted has a set of attributes.That is to say keithprosser denotes an object that (inter alia) is 5'10"tall, currently lives in Croydon, likes cats etc etc. (obviously etc etc stands for a long list of my attributes I can't be arsed to write out).Athias denotes an object with a different set of attributes. Names are convenient because it is obviously much quicker and easier to say keithprosser than to say 'the object that is5'10" tall,livesin Croydon, likes cats... (etc etc)'.The question 'does keithprosser exist?' is a convenient way of asking 'does the object 5'10"tall, living croydon, likes cats etc etc exist'?Hence the question 'does God exist'? is really asking if the object with a certain set of attributes exists. The issue becomes what are the attributes of God?
This point was easily countermanded by providing an actual example of three objects with the same name, that being myself and two members of my family. If a name is a necessary reference to an object's attributes, how would you then explain my name, and that of my other two family members? We're not triplets. (It happens to be my cousin and my uncle.) We don't have the same attributes other than our genetic relation and ethnicity. There are similarities in our personalities, but there's enough difference as well.
Created: