You know, I get it that atheism is more rational and better for humanity, but I have to note the irony. This was written by atheists for atheists so they can feel snide and smug at the expense of those who disagree, if they are not under the delusion that this is actually going to shame anyone into renouncing their faith.
Does that sound familiar?
Seriously guys, the claim that atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair color, is being rendered less clever by the day as more and more militant, proselytizing, and yes even dogmatic atheists are generated. The modern neoatheist is likely to be someone who did not come up with it on their own but instead Googled it because of their family and friends, or maybe a billboard. The same kids that would have been satanists to piss off mommy and daddy 10 year ago, are now reading Dawkins and Hitchens.
Science can not, and positively will not ever, be able to answer the question of what enforces the physical constants, or why existence bothers existing, because science by its very nature is limited to explaining things which exist.
There can be no experimentation or control group or manipulation of physical law, and even if there were it would simply become a property of existence that would in turn be unexplainable.
Science is a tape recorder, nothing more.
How gravity works in relation to the other elements of reality can be answered experimentally, but why gravity exists or why it behaves as it does, can not.
I feel like I did when I was 17 and atheism was the bold new world view.
I felt time compression and a-causality explained it all, but I was not considering the rules themselves.
I took the rules as axiomatic, as unexplorable, I did not see the forest for the trees.
Obviously a self creating universe is consistent with the laws of reality as we know them, there need not be a beginning or end or a cause… from within the framework of those rules, but why are those rules there? Why do they take this form?
And don’t tell me it’s random, one of an infinite series of realities, because if that were the case you just fall into a bigger trap.
If our reality is just 1 of an infinite set of realities with infinitely varying laws of physics then why was a universe not created that instantly annihilated all others? I know that didn’t/won’t occur because I exist, therefor there can not be infinite universes, or the rules that create the definition of universe, are limited, and here again, why that limit, why not some other limit?
Atheists just haven’t thought it through.
I wonder what I’ll be when the rest of the would be intellectual crowd comes around to my (and Einstein’s) flavor of deism.
Atheists may claim the god of the gaps and note the gap is shrinking, yes indeed, but like all significant things with regard to our universe there is a paradox at the heart of it all.
If you squeeze hard enough, the only room left for god will be everywhere.
#1 by Justin at May 10th, 2009
| Quote
1. “written by Atheists for Atheists” “so they can feel snide and smug at those who disagree”. Sounds all too familiar. Eye for an eye. Your religion kills people, my belief helps people and makes an attempt to explain reality. It’s the best we have. You cant show me one theism that tops it or makes more sense
2. I don’t think the motivational picture is actually trying to shame anyone in renouncing their faith. Then again, everything has an agenda. Even my words at this very moment. Shame on you for taking it so personally and blurring the line between truth and theory.
3. “Science can not, and positively will not ever be able to answer the question of what enforces…” It’s clear you haven’t been doing your homework. Either that or you’re totally not into theoretical sciences. I could say so much but your obvious ignorance on the issue isn’t something I would grace with a challenge or debate. No need, when I’m already right before I even speak.
4. What’s wrong with Google’ing your beliefs? Do you expect all Atheists to come up with the idea of Atheism on their own? No. I don’t see why someone’s beliefs are less valid just because they Googled it. I also don’t see why their past actions and rebellion towards “mommy and daddy 10 years ago” have anything to do with what they believe today. Who the fuck are you to judge? You pretentious little shit with your black and white photos. How dare you judge people?
5. Science is more than a tape recorder. I’m repeating myself here but you apparently don’t understand or value theoretical science. Making answers fit into a theory is how we explain things. Scientists don’t just turn their head and say “oh well, I don’t know how the fuck that star got there, I guess God did it.”
6. You’re drifting into metaphysical theory. Careful, you’re starting to sound just like a scientist.
7. Why gravity exists and why it behaves as it does can be theorized. Problem is and I think what you should have said was that nothing is absolute. Nothing can be proven 100%. I’d rather take an answer from an educated guess than from a book who thinks stoning children should be something I should be worrying about. You can’t defend theism, no matter how hard you try.
7. By your photo, I’m guessing you’re not over 38. Atheism didn’t start becoming a bold new world as you put it when you were 17. You just read about it somewhere just like everyone else who founded Atheism on Google. Hypocrisy wins you no social brownie points.
8. I won’t telly you it’s “random” or any variant of that word. I personally don’t believe in random. I believe everything happens for a reason. Discovering that reason may be harder than we could fathom
9. “Atheists just haven’t thought it through.” Thought what through? It would seem to me they’re the only ones actually THINKING. Though, I can’t prove that but based on the religious past, it appears no one was doing any thinking.
10. Lol @ the “rest of the would be intellectual crowd”. My goodness, you are very self absorbed and conceded. I hope there isn’t a person alive who takes you seriously. In fact, why am I even writing this to you? You’re one of those fucks who sit up at star bucks with his laptop by himself trying desperately to prove your intelligence because your life sucks and no one takes you seriously. You are not an enemy of Atheism, though you may protest to be.
11. Your last line was catchy but unfortunately, it made no sense what-so-ever. While you sit there typing on your SCIENCE MADE computer denouncing science and claiming you’re too good for Atheism because it’s picking up its momentum and you want to be so fashionable.
Mr. Know It All, my advise for you; Shut the fuck up! Mark Twain Said: It is better to remain silent and allow everyone to think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Enjoy your fucking coffee.
Sorry so vulgar but this kind of discussion never ceases to require and invoke some (usually more severe) outbursts and displays of emotion.
#2 by Innomen at May 10th, 2009
| Quote
Typical black and white thinking. I don’t have a religion. I have no dogma. Yet more irony. I’m either with you or one of ‘them’, is that it?
Unfalsifiable. My claim is that no one can answer. Unless you claim to know where the laws of physics originate.
Clearly it is making fun and designed expressly to make church goers feel foolish. Whether I agree with that sentiment is irrelevant.
I don’t think you even know what a theory is. Again with the thick irony. You use the world like young earth creationists do. Truth and theory can be the same thing for one, and for two how am I taking it personally? I spend my Sundays sleeping.
The irony continues, a claim without defense. You realize you just argued from faith and personal incredulity effectively, yes?
I think if you were to actually test my apparent ignorance you would be somewhat surprised.
No I don’t require all atheists to independently invent it, what I do require is that if they are to claim it as a personal belief they must understand it. Which the vast majority of neo atheists do not, as evidenced by your claims. What’s wrong is when people accept the pages they find without scrutiny. Or put another way when they treat it as dogma.
I have never encountered so much concentrated irony. Does the claim that a person must accept the beliefs of others without judgment or question sound at all familiar?
off topic, I love it when people call me little. Not that it matters, it just always makes me smile because I’m 6’4′ and 240 pounds. I’m no athlete or anything but it’s just funny. But of course you could have meant the metaphorical little.
Share with me the relevant theory that explains the construction or origin or maintenance of the physical constants and limitations which are obviously integral to existence. I’ll warn you, merely dropping buzz words will backfire in short order. I suggest you research your response carefully.
I assume you mean collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses with the eventual result of a theory.
Actually they do, and then they something akin to “I wonder how that star behaves in relation to the others or what it is composed of, or how its gravitational field effects other stellar objects, or if there are any bodies orbiting it…” cosmology is an on going pursuit because scientists as a group can not agree on exactly “How the fuck that star got there.” The big bang of course, but that’s only part of the answer.
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Stephen Hawking
I am a scientist. That’s how I know science has its limits. you’ll find the more you learn the less you know you know.
“The ancient oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing.” – Socrates
No, how gravity works, and how it behaves as it does can be described, not why it behaves as it does. There is an important difference. Science can only explain a given physical system in relation to the other systems. That is one reason why in order to understand time we must also understand space because they can only be understood in relation to each other.
Claiming nothing is absolute is an absolute. You’ve just been snagged by the golden braid. (Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid) You’ll find a paradox waiting at the bottom of everything important.
Exactly. Rather than aping infidels.org or parroting a Richard Dawkins interview. Making the arguments and understanding them are different things.
I’m sure you mean a book that claims stoning children is an acceptable behavior, because obviously you should worry about stoning children, as well as honor killing and every other form of fundamentalist religious madness
If you’re lumping my deism in there then yes I can. I can demonstrate my position, the question is can you understand it? This is not an insult, there are somethings some minds can’t picture. For example, visualize a new color, or a square circle, or a hypersphere.
Recognize that your mind may have limits that reality does not. Never confuse your lack of imagination with a lack of variety in reality. That way lies solipsism.
I’m 29 as it says clearly on my page, atheism has been around since before religion, but it’s only been on the side of buses and billboards for a few years now. I’m talking about the social atheist explosion that is clearly a recent phenomenon. Sam Harris and Dawkins and the like are not saying anything new. What is new is the attention being paid.
Actually no I didn’t. My personal break with religion occurred when I was 12, at which time I independently invented theodicy. A friend of mine’s family burned to death in a fire and while asking myself why god would allow such a thing I realized he wouldn’t, if he was all loving and all powerful. This paradox inspired me to look for others. At this time the Internet did not exist from my perspective if at all, comparing the Internet of today with the Internet of 1991.
Only later did the Internet come, I was 17. I learned to debate by debating religion. So much did I specialize that I was “God” (registered nickname) on dalnet for around 3 years. (theists wont kick you from a channel if you’re named God, just in case you know. Sort of a pascal’s wager of moderation policy. Besides, I wasn’t a troll.
Point being my lack of belief was in huge part if not entirely of my own devising.
Nor I. God does not play dice.
I am a determinist, despite the zombie cat.
Reason is a tricky word but I think I know what you mean.
I merely take that a step further and say its not possible. Just as one cannot make a perfect circle with right angles.
The logical consequences of their assertions as they relate to the reality of existence. Atheists tend to get lost in the practical advantages of their lack of faith that they don’t see the big picture. Indeed in many cases they can’t. I firmly believe some concepts, as I said before are literally outside the conceptual range of some minds. Not merely absent, but unenterable.
I know what you are trying to say, and I agree, but you might want to explore the history of science as how it relates to monks. Science was only vilified by the church when its conclusions challenged its dogma. Many radically important discoveries came as a direct result of church efforts and if you think about it this makes sense.
If god made reality then learning about reality is learning about god or at least god’s will. Thus science is a holy thing.
Try to disentangle the church from deism please.
If you say so, not my place to judge. But I do most certainly think of myself as radically more intelligent than the average. Nor will I pretend to be otherwise just to put lesser minds at ease. Not saying you are a lesser mind, just making a general statement of principal.
I would hope for the same reason I am responding. In an attempt to teach and to learn at the same time.
I can’t afford starbucks or a good laptop. I have no need to prove my intelligence, it’s abundantly clear to me. It’s as obvious to me as my gender or skin color.
I am an enemy of pain, fear, guilt, and death. Interpret that how you will.
What I said was, if you squeeze hard enough, the only room left for god will be everywhere. What I mean was once we have a complete unified field theory there will be nothing left for science to do except run the numbers and build patterns. Once the gaps are completely closed the impotence of science will become more and more clear.
It’s like looking for holes on a black surface with white paint. As of yet most can’t see the holes too clearly, but once the spots we simply can’t paint are staring us in the face because we’ve covered everything else, well, then things will change.
I’m not anti science, as I said I think science is holy, I’m simply saying faith and reason need to stay in their corners, like separation of church and state. Science has no place telling me what my purpose in life is, and religion has no place in telling me where fossils came from. Savvy?
I must reluctantly admit an element of truth there, I do grow weary of how popular it has become from a purely selfish perspective, however it is bolstered by the problems mentioned above. It is not just though it is in part, no longer being ‘special’. It is also due in part to the smugness, the delusion of completeness.
Theists think they have reality all figured out. And now so do many neo atheists. They are losing the awareness of ignorance that is the beginning of all knowledge. You must first acknowledge an absence of data before you can set about learning.
I don’t know it all, I just know a whole hell of a lot. I cannot shut up, it’s not in my nature. And I don’t mind being thought he fool.
I have gal stones, me and coffee don’t get along.
No worries passion is always welcome as far as I’m concerned and I reject censorship on principal.
P.S. According to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Cited as an example of “What Mark Twain Didn’t Say” in Mark Twain by Geoffrey C. Ward, et. al.
See? Always learning
#3 by Justin at May 12th, 2009
| Quote
Your entire reply/argument was to split hairs, it seems. You’ve taken every single word I’ve said and over analyzed it to the point that you’ve tried to make it appear as my words are wrong or invalid. Touché. Anyone can do that, though. I can do that to the Constitution of the United States but I wouldn’t do that because of my up-most respect for it.
Granted you may have an extensive vocabulary but from my perspective, you’re only trying to compare dicks. I’m sure you’d like to call this an inferiority complex but I would strongly disagree.
“Deism is a PHILOSOPHICAL belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth and religious dogma.”
As an agnostic for 10 years and an Atheist for roughly 5 years, I’d like to say that SOMETHING out there (or not) should take the credit for the creation of all things. Whether it be the Big Bang, or what-have-you. However, it would appear that your belief is too observe, and due to lack of understanding or maybe just explanation, attempt to place credit amongst a God or conscious creator. I don’t have to argue with you on this point. Surely, you can see the obvious problem with that.
You see, the Big Bang theory opens up debate by its own nature. One of it’s strong sides are that almost all of the scenarios needed for a “Big Bang” are completely possible according to our science. However, the notion of a “supreme being” who intentionally created everything leaves no room for debate, it closes the door on possibility and leaves most with an unsatisfied feeling in their stomachs. NOT TO MENTION what us humans have done with religion, it’s absolutely horrendous.
What I think you’re attempting to do is what my neighbors do. They’re both Evangelical Christians. Yeah, that’s right, just like that dick Pat Robertson you see on TV doing the 700 club bullshit. Every time science debunks a religious claim, religion stands up and points to another scenario. They will continue to do this until all things are explained which is HIGHLY hypocritical of them!!!! I can’t stress that enough!!!!!!!
Sort of like when some religious wackos tried to debunk the /THEORY/ of evolution (not evolution itself) by trying to say “this single celled organism couldn’t have evolved from anything else due to its lack of combined cells.” Or at first it was “my family didn’t come from no monkey!” Now it’s “Well, evolution is God’s plan”. No matter what, someone will try to put a false hood over science by calling it something it’s not. Every step towards victory there will be some religious wacko there to say “yeah, I knew that and God made evolution”. Or “God made science” which is total bullshit since science on this planet is composed of rules created by HUMANS. I’m trying to state facts and you’re branching off into philosophical jargon to confuse the issue.
Strangely enough, even though I’m an Atheist, something about the term “agnostic” sounds very pleasing to me. I do not know nor can I know. Therefore, I just don’t know. Although, I will admit this does imply there is SOMETHING to know and therefore there is something to worship and that type of logic is the result of over analytical people but I can’t blame them for that, especially when considering the topic. Which is why I choose to be an Atheist.
“Share with me the relevant theory that explains the construction or origin or maintenance of the physical constants and limitations which are obviously integral to existence.”
I’m not a scientist and wouldn’t dare delve into ‘what-ifs’. All this crap about “cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” really has no place in realistic, factual debate. Oddly enough, the topic IS about reality but metaphysics should be kept separate because it lets in the weirdos.
I also do not agree when you say one must first realize an absence of data in order to start learning. If this were true, then the idea of a God would be eliminated.
Your response left me dissatisfied and with little need for an entertaining reply. Where do I go from here? I think I’ll go walk my dog.
Take it easy,
-J
#4 by coolnicktaken at May 12th, 2009
| Quote
You may or may not be able to tell by my IP address that this is actually Justin posting this. I found someone else who commented on your original comment and they’ve summed it up quite nicely in my opinion. So, I pasted their name in the Name field and quoted them accordingly:
Innomen said: “I have to note the irony, that this is written by atheists for atheists so they can feel snide and smug at the expense of those who disagree”. It’s not ironic at all. If anything, it’s the Christian folks that should stay away from smugness, what with the modesty they preach and all. It’s really entertaining to poke fun at silly things. You should try it sometimes. I believe it is called satire. “more and more militant, proselytizing, and yes even dogmatic atheisms are generated.” Action-reaction. “There can be no experimentation or control group, or manipulation of physical law, and even if there were it would simply become a property of existence that would in turn be unexplainable.” And you base this statement on…? “Obviously a self creating universe is consistence with the laws of reality as we know them, there need not be a beginning or end or a cause… from within the framework of those rules, but why are those rules there? Why do they take this form?” This sort of thing reminds me of people that cannot cope with a reality and keep pushing the question ‘why’. Sometimes, people die. Sometimes, people leave. Sometimes, universes appear. It’s too bad that the idea of chaos and purposelessness is unacceptable to some people, because it just might be the truth. “If our reality is just 1 of an infinite set of realities with infinitely varying laws of physics then why was a universe not created that instantly annihilated all others?” How do you know it didn’t? Did God tell you? “Atheists just haven’t thought it through.” Through what? “I wonder what I’ll be when the rest of the would be intellectual crowd comes around to my flavor of deism.” Did you intend to describe yourself as “would be intellectual”, or was it just accidental? “If you squeeze hard enough, the only room left for god will be everywhere.” I’m sure you thought that one up all by yourself.
#5 by Innomen at May 13th, 2009
| Quote
@justin
I’m not playing any sophist games. My opinion is what it is, what can I say?
I’m not trying to defeat you or win anything, I’m simply explaining why I feel my position is correct in logical terms.
I have no reason to believe you have any sort of complex. We simply appear to disagree.
I agree with your definition.
Indeed not, we agree. I know nothing of god beyond it’s existence. I ascribe to it no other traits beyond what is logically inescapable, namely that it enforces the physical constants.
Actually science is the study of physical rules and attempting to make our written understanding of those rules match reality.
Again, I’m not trying to confuse anything, if I’ve confused you ask a question, I’m seriously not trying distort anything.
You have to form a question before you can search for an answer. Basic.
You argued this because you assumed I was a bible thumping fundamentalist, when in fact I’ve no religion of any kind, I simply hold a single belief with regard to the nature of reality that pertains to the idea of God.
We appear to agree once you get past your assumptions, once I clarified.
#6 by Innomen at May 13th, 2009
| Quote
@coolnicktaken (Justin)
“There can be no experimentation or control group, or manipulation of physical law, and even if there were it would simply become a property of existence that would in turn be unexplainable.”
And you base this statement on…?
Well I base the first part on the fact that existence is by definition singular, and I base the second part on the fact that any change to the physical constants would be observable and therefor still subject to the same question, what enforces the new rule. Science can only tell us how that rule relates to the other observable rules, it can not tell us by what mechanism those rules are shaped or generated.
Sometimes? Existence only “appeared” once. And your answer about to an adult version of “just cuz.” That’s not good enough. If you don’t want to ask the question, that’s fine. but to claim “just cuz” is an answer you have to defend that positive assertion.
Show me an example of anything else just “appearing”. Ironically its that sort of magical thinking that science is trying to remove the need for.
Agreed, but to claim it is the truth you need to be able to defend that claim, burden of proof *shrugs.*
Uhh, no. I’m here, so clearly my universe was not destroyed by an alternate reality.
The logical consequences of their espoused world view.
It’s a misunderstanding on your part. Would be intellectuals was in reference to the atheists who think they are clever because they understand a paradox or two.
Yes I did. It means that when we have unified field theory, the only question left will be “why” and the only answer possible is “because of whatever is happening outside” which can only be called god.
#7 by Justin at May 16th, 2009
| Quote
I don’t think you’re a bible thumping fundamentalist. I knew you were a deist when this conversation first started. I could also tell by your objective words that it is highly unlikely you are an average “Christian” by any stretch of the imagination.
“Yes I did. It means that when we have unified field theory, the only question left will be “why” and the only answer possible is “because of whatever is happening outside” which can only be called god.”
Lol, you know where I’m going to go with this. You’re just accepting defeat of the unknown claiming there will never be a way to explain what we don’t know…yet. This is problem. You’re saying, beyond our laws of science, what we don’t understand must be God? So, beyond the ENTIRE universe, it must be God? Have you looked at that “Zooming out in powers of 10″ video yet? It’s really fascinating and it is relevant to my point here. It makes you wonder about what is out there when you keep zooming out. What if it isn’t God? How could you make such an assumption? It would seem to me you’re more of an agnostic than a God believer.
Just because we can’t explain something yet, doesn’t mean it must be God. You do realize that far back in the past, people assumed the lights in the night sky were God. Now they know they’re stars. They made that assumption because they COULDN’T know the truth due to lack of technology. Once science advanced and disproved their assumption, they moved to other things they couldn’t explain. I’m glad there is someone out there calling everything that’s unexplainable “God” because this only provides more fuel to the scientific community as a whole…which you are proudly a participant in.
PS. I really enjoyed the dental blog. :p
#8 by Innomen at May 16th, 2009
| Quote
“Just because we can’t explain something yet, doesn’t mean it must be God.”
This is the god of the gaps argument and that is not what I am making, or rather I am making it in a gap that by definition can never be filled.
Consider what science is, the study of observable phenomena and making predictions based on our understanding of the immutable laws of physics.
Whatever enforces those physics cannot be understood via the scientific method, further cosmological theories must remain so forever, many theories about large scale systems or unique intrinsic properties have this problem.
I’m glad you liked the dental debate.
#9 by Justin at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
OKKKKKK. I’m home, kind of drunk…let’s see how well I do. In the morning, I’ll probably be wishing you would incorporate an “edit” button for posts. lol
“This is the god of the gaps argument and that is not what I am making, or rather I am making it in a gap that by definition can never be filled.”
That’s exactly what you’re doing and you’re basing it on ideas that have yet to be proven. Just cause it can’t be proven doesn’t mean it’s God. You’re taking one unexplainable event and “filling the gap” with God. I mean, that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing which is fundamentally flawed. I think the reason you do it is really a faith issue rather a scientific explanation (or lack their of).
Again, quoting someone who can say it better than I can – Pat Condell; “Faith is the deliberate suspension of disbelief. Without evidence you’ve got no reason to believe other than your willingness to believe. Why is that worthy of respect anymore than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil?”
Also, when I say you’re over analyzing my every word it’s because you take every sentence and tear it apart one by one instead of approaching the conversation as a whole. Each individual point may require more than one sentence and therefore, if you’re going to reply, you should reply to the whole thing. Not each sentence one by one. That’s just….well, not replying at all, really. It’s one thing to quote and another to quote sentence by sentence by sentence by sentence by sentence to the end of the page. Like I said before, you can do that to anyone’s views, you can do that to the US Constitution. Just tear it apart sentence by sentence and make it appear irrational. I’ll show you. You said:
“Well I base the first part on the fact that existence is by definition singular”
I could go on an entire rampage here because I already know that what you’re talking about is Metaphysics and none of that is FACT and just to clarify, about your “fact”, the very definition of existence is NOT singular because it can’t be proven. Singularity is still a theory. Taken from physlink.com, “Singularity represents an infinity and we generally don’t think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of ‘floor’ built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).” Is this the singularity you’re referring to? In fact, I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about. LOL.
I just know you will believe in one theory but not another. You will willingly believe in a God without ANY proof. If you hadn’t been told about God prior to your own decisions, you wouldn’t believe in a creator. You wouldn’t know otherwise. Metaphysics is all theory and we can’t prove that I actually exist but I know I do. At least that’s what it seems. But just because you can’t prove that I exist doesn’t mean that I do or that I don’t. It means you can’t prove it. That’s it. But yet, I am still in existence. You’re just taking that logic and applying the god-gap thing.
Just for clarification, the definition of “existence”;
# existent – real: being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory; “real objects”; “real people; not ghosts”; “a film based on real life”; “a real illness”; “real humility”; “Life is real! Life is earnest!”- Longfellow
# existent – actual: presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible; “the predicted temperature and the actual temperature were markedly different”; “actual and imagined conditions”
Dictionary quote
Is this a good analogy, should I use another?
I’ve left out other stuff you said and based my point on just one sentence and then I could move on to the next sentence when it very well could have been a series of points or a benchmark for a point you had later in the conversation. If someone comes in and guts it, then yes, it looks out of place and void of all fact. I too can be manipulative but it doesn’t serve the third party reader any justice. But hey, it’s your blog. Do with it what you will. This type of strategy they teach in high school debate class.
You’re trying very hard to say that it’s okay to fill certain gaps with the God-of-gaps argument because you don’t believe they’ll ever be known. You’re predicting the future too? You’re amazing.
Anyway, I think you’re doubting the capability of science and theory and most importantly, you’re doubting the creative ability of the people born on this planet. I’m just hoping another Einstein (without the bomb) come forth before I’m dead. We would never have gotten this far if it hadn’t been largely for 2 people. Just imagine what we could do NOW with just 1 more Einstein! Although, I’m assuming that because I can’t really predict the past or the future and neither can you. With that being said, your belief in God is probably based more on faith or metaphysics than actual fact. Your methods of analyzing others beliefs are based on fashion and superiority and they seem superficial at best. No offense, really.
Just for good measure:
“Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Knowledge in science is gained through research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.” -Wiki quote
Just think of the type of data we will collect, the answers we will answer and the questions we will inevitably inherent when we really figure out this whole “dark matter” thing. You know they call it the “God Particle”, right? I can’t wait to see more criticism of “String Theory”. After all, Evolution was once a theory. Don’t give up and certainly don’t give credit where credit is not due.
Sorry for my recent outbursts. I’m not “happy” in the mind and often resort to anger towards issues I feel strongly about. It’s a problem I’m working on…
Anyhow, I THINK this conversation is on its last leg for me. Go ahead…tear it up.
-J
#10 by Innomen at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
I would love to allow edits but I’m a crappy webmaster, I will however delete comments on request no questions asked, so you can, edit, sorta.
Firstly the area in question (outside existence) cannot be proved by definition, but as Godel has shown us no idea of system can be complete without true and yet unprovable statements.
I am not saying that you must disprove, I am saying that I have disproved.
An idea expressed in words is built layer by layer. If your foundation is flawed, the rest of the argument is shaken. Strive to make your sentences unassailable. A sentence is supposed to be a single thought, try not to make that thought incorrect.
Further, if you look at my refutation it may apply to an entire paragraph and the sentence in question is just to give you some idea of what I am responding to.
Existence cannot be proven to exist in the sense that if existence itself is in question to what are you making the proof, and whence comes the proof?
But anything conceptually can be treated as a singular, as per set theory, the set of all apples, the set of all Internet debates, and so on.
Existence however, if one grants that it exists, can only be a singular. The set of all observable reality. The words have problems here, “universe” “existence” “reality” and all related terms fall apart to one degree or another at this scale.
Also you have confused singularity, the condition of being alone, unique or “all of a piece,” and A singularity, which is the physics and mathematics entity you mentioned, like the theoretical center of a black hole.
I am not quibbling about the physics of our observable reality, I believe the exact behavior of every particle and field in observable reality can be predicted and understood through the scientific method, my point is, whence comes that order? You’re infinitely regressing me.
You have caused a break through for me, I now have a better way to explain myself. God is that which enforces axioms. Science cannot explore this or change an axiom.
Hardly. I’m a deist, I’ve come to my position through reason. Axioms exist. I exist. To see what I’m talking about look into the possibility of changing the speed of light in a vacuum, not in anyone spot, but universally.
You can’t, ever. The speed of light is an intrinsic facet of observable reality, it is axiomatic. science can tell us what that speed is, but it can never ever alter it.
No, only one gap. The only gap that science cannot ever touch. Science has limits. To pretend it does not opens you to the same arguments used to tear down the white light god. Can science make a rock so big it can’t move it? Can science make a perfect circle with right angles? Can science make two parallel lines intersect?
Along the same lines, can science manipulate the physical constants of observable reality? No, by definition they are constant. The only possible refutation would be to claim that there are no constants, which amount to You telling the future, by claiming that one day the speed of light in a vacuum will change, etc.
Conviction and passion are never problems.
#11 by Justin at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
“No, only one gap. ”
And it’s THAT gap that this conversation is truthfully based on. Let’s not minimize that, ok? lol. I think you’d sound “wiser” if you just said “I don’t know but there are interesting theories out there”. You’ve just made up your mind because of some metaphysical theories, math equations and what you presume someone will never be able to theorize and test in the future. You even have your own theoretical particles? I hope you do find a real answer though. I’d love to hear it.
“Can science make a rock so big it can’t move it?”
I’m confused by this. I’m not understanding. The question assumes a lot of information, such as location of the items origin, location of the finished product, exact items, and how the items got to the rock in the first place. I’ve never heard this question, though. Where are you going with it?
“Can science make a perfect circle with right angles?”
1. Nothing can be perfect. Not circles, not squares, nothing. But I suppose that depends on where you’re looking at it from. It could be an illusion of resolution and distance.
2.What are the right angles made out of? Dots? Because those aren’t right angles then, are they?
“Can science make two parallel lines intersect?”
Taken from some web page:
Consider an isosceles triangle (where 2 side are equal in length) – if you increases the length of the two equal sides the angle subtended by these lines decreases; as the length of the lines tend to infinity, so the angle tends to zero and the lines are therefore parallel. But as it is a triangle they must meet at infinity!
Equally, if your car could drive through an infinite field of snow in a perfectly straight line, the tyre tracks would never meet.
So I’m afraid the answer to this question is clearly both yes and no.
Added:
And if you’re not convinced that the the lines are parallel at infinity, consider this:
1÷9 = 0.1111111111111111111111111111…
2÷9 = 0.2222222222222222222222222222…
3÷9 = 0.3333333333333333333333333333…
4÷9 = 0.4444444444444444444444444444…
5÷9 = 0.5555555555555555555555555555…
6÷9 = 0.6666666666666666666666666666…
7÷9 = 0.7777777777777777777777777777…
8÷9 = 0.8888888888888888888888888888…
9÷9 = 0.9999999999999999999999999999…
But 9÷9 is quite obviously =1 therefore
0.9999999999999999999999999999… = 1
So you might argue that at infinity there is still a small distance between the lines of the triangle, but the above equation shows that this is not the case.
In short; Theoretically, Yes. That’s good enough, right?
“Can science manipulate the physical constants of observable reality?”
Taken from another web page:
“This may be seen as more of a philosophical question than a question that science can answer, and there are obviously huge aspects of this question that are inherently untouchable by science. However, I think that if we can understand all aspects of neuroscience and cognition, and if it turns out that we can predict and explain the emergence of consciousness from the underlying levels of complexity, then a full understanding of what defines the “self” may be a natural outcome.
We will have a full synthesis of all aspects at all levels of the human brain, and it seems likely that we will then be able to define the “self” as a construct containing everything within the model. That is, you are the sum of all your parts, biochemistry, memories, senses, experiences, feelings, and the emergent properties themselves.”
Why are we debating trig, geometry, and mathematics and science instead of VALIDATING “God”? You’re making this much harder than is necessary. You’re giving me a break down on the Spanish Inquisition and I’m trying to keep up because I truthfully want to understand but I’m having trouble believing you’re not doing it on purpose.
Sneaky, you are. :p I’m sure you’ll deny it.
So, after all these mathematical anomalies, where in here should a person apply the God Gap and exactly why and how does this eliminate the mathematical anomaly? Can I see an illustration of this?
#12 by Justin at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
You know, this conversation is a mathematical anomaly. Literally. The direction it’s headed is equal to pi.
#13 by Justin at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
Here is an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCp7dbj594Q
If you wouldn’t mind, combining all the extra comments into one with spacing.
#14 by Innomen at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
That edit job is harder than you think and it’s not worth it to me. you have my permission however to copy all this stuff to your blog and format it as you like so long as two conditions are met, 1 you don’t leave out any of what I say, 2, you don’t change your responses.
In response to your video link, I take exception to the third ‘law.’
Perspective, and incidentally the uncertainty principal, grants the possibility for quasi existence, in much the same way that light exists as a particle and a wave.
Also the definition of existence needs to be clarified for the purposes of this debate. for example, obviously he’s excluding existence within the mind, or god as an idea. Clearly in that sense god exists, but so does Tyler Durden.
Further, existence for the purposes of this debate is separate from being. Take for example the idea of parallel universes, which is pretty well demanded by modern cosmology, if something were to exist in one of these parallel universes it would not exist here, I and I don’t mean like exist in another house I mean from the perspective of existence in this universe, the others do not exist, yet we know that they must. you may reject this theory if you like, I do, however the concept of simultaneous existence (there) and non existence (here) is extremely pertinent.
He also goes on to state that if I believe god is the creator of mom or the earth then it can be proven to not exist. This is incorrect, god merely had to create the physical constants, indeed beyond his existence that is the only ‘action’ he/it/whatever could have taken.
*facepalm* Dude I don’t’ know any clearer or simpler way to put it and that may be my weakness but this idea of yours that absolutely everything can be proven is absurdly dogmatic.
Go Wiki Godel, right now. I’ll wait.
Do you even know what an axiom is? An axiom is something that is true and unprovable by it fundamental manifest nature.
Example: 1=1 Obvious right? Well, prove it. Don’t restate it, prove it. Show that one cannot possibly equal two. All of math is based on this and other axioms. The question of why should 1 = 1 is an intrinsic facet of our reality. I can’t not visualize or imagine but I can conceptualize the existence of a reality where 1=2, just like I can say hypercube but I can’t draw it or visualize it.
You simply don’t get it. I’m not making the argument which Russel’s teapot annihilates. I’m not saying god might be out there somewhere on planet wharble we just haven’t found it yet.
Why does 1=1? Answer that, and get back to me. “it just does” is insufficient. If “it just does” is acceptable, then why are we arguing?
Also, you don’t understand geometry. a line isn’t made up of dots, it is a separate thing. A PICTURE of a line may be made up of discreet elements. But the concept of line is not. Your argument is like talking about what the letter B is made of and then spouting the recipe for ink or tomato soup. You can represent a B with ink but it is not made of ink. Savvy?
I’m aware that 0.(9) = 1, what’s your point? it’s like saying 1 = one. That does not make parallel lines intersect, the instant they intersect they stop being parallel.
It’s interesting that you accept a “yes and no” or quasi-answer from math but you won’t accept one on the existence of god. Why is that?
I didn’t say our conscious perception of reality I said the rules of physical reality. The axiomatic nature of existence that gives rise to the shape of all that is observable or in existence.
And all Cretins are liars. What can I say to that?
At the point below axioms and beyond. I thank you for forcing me to arrive at that answer.
Looked at one way all conceptualization requires faith. You believe, 1=1, but you can’t prove it. You can simply take it as a given and go from there. This is a basic philosophical idea, prove you’re not a brain in a jar. *shrugs* This type of shit you just have to get used to, its EVERYWHERE.
I don’t know if this is useful for you but it certainly has been for me
#15 by Justin at May 17th, 2009
| Quote
Are you calling me a lying Cretin? lol. Uh, ok. That’s a first.
First of all, I didn’t say everything in the universe can be proven. In fact, I already said nothing is absolute. Nothing can be proven 100%. This I already know. That pretty much cuts out the fat from your reply…which looks to be about 75$% of the meat.
Secondly, “quasi” existence is NOT existence!
# existent – real: being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory; “real objects”; “real people; not ghosts”; “a film based on real life”; “a real illness”; “real humility”; “Life is real! Life is earnest!”- Longfellow
# existent – actual: presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible; “the predicted temperature and the actual temperature were markedly different”; “actual and imagined conditions”
Your hypothesis (which is what it is at the VERY most) is not presently existing in fact and is merely potential or possible. Your ideas have yet to rise to theory and it appears they never will be. At least not by your hands.
Just because you think something exists in your head, doesn’t make it real. You can think you’re a chicken all you want but until I see some eggs, you’re not a chicken. That’s what it’s all about…evidence. Not this metaphysical, psycho-babble you’re ranting on and on about. You’re essentially calling an anomaly “God”. I think. You’re also trying to provide that hypothesis a backbone with the Cogito Ergo Sum crap.
We’re not talking about third dimensions. We’re not talking about parallel lines. We’re not talking about pi and all this other shit. We’re talking about YOU filling in the gaps in our understanding of the universe with “GOD” simply because you believe some aspects to SCIENCE are unprovable. News flash, a large majority of science that we regard as fact is indeed “evidential fact”. You’re trying to confuse the issue by saying in your definition of existence, something doesn’t have to exist in physical form in order to exist. I just can’t wrap my head around that. The logic there seems diluted.
Everything exists at least at the quantum level. The rest are just ideas. You’re blending philosophical jargon with scientific facts and theories. You’re thinking has become severely confused.
Yes, this has been useful for me. I’ve enjoyed the majority of the conversation. I bid you a fond adieu.
#16 by Innomen at May 20th, 2009
| Quote
*facepalm* Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#History
You are using that old saw as a cherry pick to avoid having to prove your positions. Sure nothing can be truly KNOWN with 100% certainty but society and science both have an operational range which amount to certainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
You say that with such conviction and yet you just said nothing can be proven. Then it follows that nothing can be proven to exist, so whence comes your certainty?
Again, I thought nothing was provable. How do you define real?
That’s not an argument, it’s an angst ridden attack. I do not care how you characterize my position.
You’re the one that brought up pi.
You still don’t understand my argument. Even if science proved conclusively its complete and total understanding of the observable universe it can not explain much less prove why the physical laws are as they are. Science by definition can only explain how existence works, not why existence is.
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” – Stephen Hawking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
Sweet, have a nice day. And remember, what stops 1 from equaling 2?
#17 by Justin at May 20th, 2009
| Quote
I think the point is clearly that while it may be OK to stand back and look at the universe and realize you don’t understand and admit there are gaps in our understanding, it is a whole different ballgame when you suggest its entire existence is that of a “creator” because that’s all speculation. There are thousands of THEORETICAL explanations for our existence and even more hypothetical explanations for our existence. Your hypothetical argument is persistent, redundant, inconclusive and just outright absurd to my standards.
In my opinion, it’s an abomination to speculate on scientific matters without taking the time to prove it. It’s a whole different ballgame to have the math and the samples right in front of you and determine a higher probability even without proving something 100%. While the “Theory of Evolution” is probably up into the 90′s, I’m guessing, your theory, while I admit I don’t fully understand your verbiage and you’re not providing relevant sources for this information, and it appears you’re ranting, it seems far less likely. It also seems biased considering your beliefs.
“so whence comes your certainty?”
The question isn’t about my certainty. It’s about yours. You’re being manipulative. We’re not talking about me. We’re talking about YOUR premature hypothesis.
“Again, I thought nothing was provable. How do you define real?”
The proof that I’m real is much more attainable and proven then your “psycho-babble metaphysical” bullshit. Sure, I can come up with a hypothesis that my dog is actually a fucking corn flake and HOW could you prove me wrong if I tell you that you’re not even sure if YOU’RE real or not?! That’s not an argument. That’s just you manipulating the conversation with this same old routine because of a psychological anomaly. You’re defacing the Descartes argument by translating it “I think, therefore God must exist”. This shit isn’t permitted in this type of conversation. I’m Cherry Picking? That’s rich Mr. Copy & Paste.
“Sweet, have a nice day. And remember, what stops 1 from equaling 2?”
Uh, a + sign, the number 1 and an = sign? You should snap back to reality. I have a feeling you’re far gone, though.
Notice I’ve basically repeated myself 3 times now? You’re not making an argument. You’re asking me questions about material that is off topic. Basically, by trying to disprove what I’ve said, you expect your readers to believe what you’ve said. See the problem? I doubt it. This is a typical approach to people who still can’t provide anymore RELEVANT information to the existence of a God. Not to whether I exist or what is “exist”? etc etc. It is clear you are intentionally blurring the lines of reality and using that as the spine to your belief which I must say, is a confusing mess of shit and doesn’t deserve to be taken literally.
#18 by Justin at May 20th, 2009
| Quote
It’s your blog. You’ll have the last word and make an attempt to again disprove me instead of taking your hypothesis to the level of “theory” with at least the bare minimum evidential proof.
#19 by Innomen at May 21st, 2009
| Quote
This one got so upset he blocked me on stumble upon, which is ironic considering he at first accused me of censorship, heh.
#20 by Innomen at May 24th, 2009
| Quote
Like I said, some people just don’t get it. The difficulty stems from a lack of imagination. You take the structure of your world as a given. To even contemplate a world with different physical rules or even more esoteric, a completely alternative set of axioms, is difficult to put it mildly.
In short you take too much for granted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Epistemological_issues Science itself for example is up for debate.
You’re repeating yourself because you are incapable of responding. You simply restate your position rather than providing a rebuttal. It’s like a child asking why to infinity, while it appears to be fruitful, and is in some ways, it requires no understanding on the part of the asker.
It’s the debate equivalent of “I know you are but what am I.”
Pot, Kettle, Black. You fail to even address my claims. You simply reiterate a believe that through science the whole of observable reality can and will be meaningfully understood, and I agree. But that has no bearing on my contention that the physical constants require enforcement and shaping. It has no bearing on my assertion that observable reality by its own structure demand the existence of an outside which is exerting pressure on our observable reality in the form of the physical constants.
The question of what makes axioms true can not be approached scientifically because science is the study of the impact of axioms. Science is an audit of the physical constants, it cannot speak to their origin.
I expect my readers to think and learn, I am not in the business of creating dogma, I require nothing be taken on faith, that said, some things are beyond proof, they will understand or they will not, they will agree or they will not.
Obviously I don’t see a problem with my own conclusions, else I would set about making new ones in order to solve the problem.
I am not committing a false dilemma fallacy. It is more than possible that we are both wrong. I know for a fact I can not, ever, be proven right, I’m comfortable with that.
What does that even mean? How do I provide information to the existence of something? Can I mail a letter to the existence of a carrot? That said, I don’t define god like you do probably, my definition is far simpler. My proof of god is logical, not evidential, unless you count my inferences as evidence.
It’s axiomatically simple. The physical constants exist, they in no way can be altered or even studied. They simply are. Since things don’t just pop into existence (or leave it) in our observable reality, especially new physical constants, then I reject this as a sufficient possibility for our current set.
Therefor in order for them to just pop in out of nothing they had to do so in a setting where that occurs, and clearly that is not here, thereof their existence demands a “somewhere else.”
The other possibility is a non causal origin, in which case reality bootstrapped itself way into existence. Making the concept of a a beginning moot, but that just asks the same question. Why exist at all? Not why as in intention, or purpose, but why as in why bother.
You either see that or you don’t. It can’t be proven.
I’m saying the lines of reality are very clear. and they clearly demand something which must be true but can not be proven.
Your confusion is irrelevant. Just because you fail to understand does not mean no understanding is possible.
It’s not a game of tag. You seem hung up on the scientific method, and I’m telling you that it does not apply here. You never did read about Godel did you. Pity.
#21 by Justin at June 14th, 2009
| Quote
By the way, I’ve since been finding all of your arguments online. You’ve mostly copied and pasted everything you’ve said into this conversation. Most of these words that you’ve taken are not yours and you’ve taken them out of context.
“I also wish that people wouldn’t use apparently paradoxical arguments to attempt to disprove the existence of gods. A paradox is, more often than not, merely a complication of language. The most common example of this is the question “could god create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?”. Presumably a god could create a rock of infinite mass – the fact that he would still be able to lift it wouldn’t mean that he had failed the omnipotence test! The question itself makes no sense. It is as meaningless as wondering if god would be able to create a “square circle” or make 2 + 2 = 5.”
Gee, that looks so familiar. Doesn’t it? You should be ashamed of yourself. I don’t need to read about “Godel” in order to believe that there is not, nor has there ever been an intelligent creator. You’ve desperately tried to win your entire argument with your manipulative paradox bs knowing full well what you were doing in the beginning. That’s how you think you’ve won arguments? Is that why you sent me a message saying that you won? That’s pretty shallow. You didn’t win, you just started speaking another language. That’s not winning. In fact, the title of this post is “Neo Atheism” and I’ve yet to hear one good reason why you would choose to speak negatively about someones belief or lack their of. Like I said before, it’s very apparent to me that the only reason you’re hating on someone is because you have this holier than thou attitude like you’re better than others. You really believe in your head that you’re smarter than everyone else. You’ve brainwashed yourself into an egotistical, manipulative smart ass. However, I’ve since disproved your lame attempts to prove Gods existence. Truth is, there is no existence to God. Therefore, to disprove something that doesn’t exist is a redundant unnecessary argument. However, you’re welcome to manifest your “reality” into its own psychological existence if you want but that doesn’t mean it actually exists further than electric pulses in your head.
It’s amazing how someone just using logic overwhelms your argument. I’ve not even tried.
Best of luck to you,
-J
#22 by Justin at June 14th, 2009
| Quote
I suppose I should have mentioned this but I know you already know; You’re a jerk to people and you come off very arrogant, rude and abrasive. This is why people bash you at other forums. This is why no one really wants to visit your blog. This is why you’re hated on and this is why I blocked you. Don’t pretend to be innocent. Don’t pretend you didn’t run back and remove your review. LIke I said to you in my original message to you; you are not wise. bye
#23 by Innomen at November 10th, 2009
| Quote
Thank you. It should be easy. I’m the primary “Innomen” on the net, and I’m one of 5 “Brandon M. Sergent”s in the United States. It should be easy to find my work.
You show me where I’m guilty of plagiarism and I’ll give you 5$ per instance via PayPal. You’ll notice that when I quote someone I use quotes. At best I’m guilty (?) of independent invention.
Indeed. Google says it’s from “religionisbullshit.net.” it’s a common argument with a common non-answer. It is in effect answering a question with a question. Or complaining about the question and calling it an answer, it simply extends the silliness of the idea of an all powerful god, which by the way mine is not, as far as I can tel my god only has one power. Creating/enforcing physical constants.
Where are you saying I’ve plagiarized it? Are you saying I claimed to have invented the argument? Independently yes, but I don’t have an illusion of having been the first.
Clever changing topics mid debate. I never said our creator was intelligent or even capable of thought. Indeed, I claim NOTHING about it beyond its act (?) of creating/maintaining our reality.
You do need to read about Gödel if you wish to understand the implications of the belief that any system can be completely understood beyond doubt. You have to understand the nature of proof if you wish to pretend yourself rational.
I’m not saying you need a degree in math, I’m just saying you need to expose yourself to the concept of non-provability being compatible with fact.
All I’m trying to win is a clear understanding of my reality, and the testing of that understanding in the face of opposition. I win every time you reply to me. I win every time I learn something. I win every time someone else learns something from this conversation.
I’m sorry if you find the paradoxical nature of reality confusing, but don’t kill the messenger. Your phrase is as silly to me as saying “all that physics bs.” If it’s bs then demonstrate it.
I’ve won the arguments by cogently answering your objections in such a manner as to show your logic, and therefor your position in this instance, as fundamentally flawed.
I told you I won because you stopped up your ears and ran away rather than agree to disagree or in some other manner respectfully end our encounter. I told you I won because you demonstrated yourself to be petty and personally insulting in lieu of any form of rational counterpoint.
Your failure to understand my argument sufficient to defeat it is not my problem. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it can not be gotten. And if you admit ignorance then what basis do you have for continuing to debate? If you admit ignorance you should be asking questions instead.
In fact, the title of this post is “Neo Atheism” and I’ve yet to hear one good reason why you would choose to speak negatively about someones belief or lack their of.
I don’t need a “good” reason for any of my choices, they are my choices. Perhaps we disagree about the definition of good being that it’s a completely subjective term? If fundamentalism portraying itself as rationality and steadily gaining political power is not a “good” reason for you then we have more fundamental differences than spirituality.
Choose some objective measures, like say intelligence and ethics. I am indeed FAR better than many others. But the desire to meet the people “better” than me, and then learn from them is why I do this publicly.
According to the WAIS-III (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ) “Relative to his peers, Mr. Sergent exhibits. strengths across all domains.” *shrugs* My psychological evaluation is publicly available. If you want specifics. My favorite part is “On the Perceptual Organization Index, Mr. Sergent performed better than 92.0% of his peers.” In summation… “His overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 87% of adults his age”
So yeah I am smart, and I think I’m smart. I’m not going to pretend I’m not just to make you feel better. Maybe instead of trying to tear me down you should try and lift yourself up.
If you define existence as within our observable reality then we agree. If you define existence as in actual being, regardless of location, then we disagree. You’ve been trying this whole debate (unsuccessfully) to put a beard on my god, and its pretty funny to me at times. But mostly it’s bland, as in you’re a walking talking example of the fact that people simply are never convinced by rational argument against their will. you don’t listen because you don’t want to and it’s that simple.
Heh, circular reasoning works because circular reasoning… That’s startlingly close to faith.
Prove the same isn’t true about your keyboard. It’s called the brain in a jar argument and they made a pretty neat SciFi movie based on it. You may have heard of it. I think it starred the guy from Point Break.
What’s really amazing is when the overwhelmed think they’ve proved something.
I know.
Thanks! And you as well.
I wrote a whole essay about my feelings on that sort of claim.
http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=54 It’s called “Screw Your Manners.”
Or it could be my total lack of advertising and my ultra slow webhost. This blog exists for a very specific reason. It’s not yet ready for mass consumption.
I think I’m hated because I’m right and a LOT of people are rendered unethical in their life choices if I am. Or put more simply, the truth hurts.
You blocked me because you’re addicted to pride.
Oh I’m not.
What are you talking about? What review, of what, on where?
That’s your opinion and you have every right to it. Wise is a subjective term. As I define it, I am, as you define it, I’m not. There is no objective wisdom test. If there were we could test the wisdom of hydrogen and determine if our universe is an idiot.
Have a sweet day.
#24 by Innomen at June 29th, 2010
| Quote
Once again for the cheap seats, atheism claims a certainty where there can be none. In order to refute all gods you must define all gods and since some gods do not fit refutable definitions (like Einstein’s Old One, or various versions of nature as god) and most well articulated deist definitions, atheism is effective only in a relative sense.
Neoatheism’s attempt to rid the world of the demand for philosophy will fail because it has failed. Rationality can only EVER by virtue of its nature answer how. Why is FOREVER out of reach and the fundamental question of exist is not how, but why.
Agnosticism claims that this permanent uncertainty exists. It is not merely “I Don’t Know” it is also “This Cannot Be Known” which is a far more useful phrase because it’s actually a positive testable statement.
Far more so in fact than the proof of negative by deductive logic strong (neo)atheism depends on.
The only way to defend atheism is to manipulate the contradictory definitions given by opponents, atheism by its very nature is a counter movement and fails to exist in the absence of enemies.
Agnosticism on the other hand needs only the permanent uncertainty to exist to validate itself and since said uncertainty is permanent, so is agnosticism.
At the very base of existence is an axiom and an axiom by definition is perfectly resistant to rational inquiry.
Tough cookie.
#25 by Kevin at July 8th, 2010
| Quote
This was an interesting dialog between the two of you (Innomen and Justin). Some thoughts I had while reading your comments.
First, using the word “God” when you refer to the concept of the “Creator”:
Do you believe in the God of the Bible? Because God really does refer to a specific monotheistic deity. I mean Muslims have a different name for God, Allah, and Jews have Yhwh. The Christians have God. You need to come up with your own name, otherwise you’re just going to end up confusing people, especially since, I suspect, you don’t believe in the attributes assigned by Christians to God. So, what name do Deists give to this apathetic “First Cause”? And how do the various religions relate to this “First Cause”? Why not say “Creator” all the time?
Second, axioms:
Now, this is probably important, Is there an axiom of paradox? Because if there isn’t, there probably should be one.
You stated that the Creator is the “enforcer of Axioms”. Well, I pose this question then, which axioms? And how do you know? The trouble though, is your asserting there is a Creator, is an axiom itself (or an empty assertion), since axioms are supposed to be self-evident. The Creator axiom doesn’t seem that self-evident to me. I mean, the idea of an infinite omniverse seems just as probable, if not more probable.
When I asked a Theravada Buddhist monk why they believe in the concept of no-self, anatta, because I believed the concept to be counter intuitive, instead of trying to provide their own simple explanation, they sent me about 10 or 20 links to pages on the web talking about no-self. I still haven’t read them, because it’s starting to feel like debates I get in with Christians, where they Google a bunch of junk links and try to overwhelm me with quantity, not necessarily quality. What I’ve concluded, as a result of my own research and thought processes, is that everyone is trying to assert their axioms with more assertions of their axioms. Christians assert their axiom that the Bible is the infallible word of God, Buddhists assert their axioms of the Four Noble Truths, and Muslims assert their axiom that the Quran is the infallible word of God. Scientists assert what I’ve heard called “the fundamental axiom of existence”, or induction based on patterns in reality. I think we have to be careful with these kinds of assertions, because no matter how strongly an axiom is asserted, it doesn’t make it true. I don’t know. I mean, I like to think that some axioms are better than others, but what is it that makes it so? And based on this criteria, which axioms should be believed, and which ones should be discarded?
The other problem that I’m thinking presents itself in the Deist position, is what is your “God” good for? He doesn’t have the contradictory problem of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence, because he is apathetic. So what good is He? Your “God” appears to have created the Universe out of boredom, then walked away, or spends all his time watching the drama unfold, unapologetic of what it created. I mean, as soon as you assert there is a sentient creator, you have to start asking about the nature of said creator. What attributes to apply to the Creator? Do you believe the Creator implemented laws of Ethics into the Universe? Is there justice in the Universe, ultimately? Is there existence after death?
Axioms are supposed to be “self-evident”, like your axiom that there is a Creator, unfortunately, one man’s “self-evident” is another man’s “what you say?!”.
P.S. Reality is all that matters. So what reality does your Creator exist in? It still would exist in some reality, so how could it be the cause of all reality? Do you believe it is perpetually moving out of reality? The interesting thing about your axiom of the Creator, based on that axiom, it should be possible to infer some interesting things about Absolute Reality, or the set of all reality, don’t you think?
#26 by Innomen at July 9th, 2010
| Quote
Nopers. Didn’t I say that somewhere in the post? Well, it bears repeating. I do not believe in the white light paradoxical god that is obviously sentient.
I’m aware that’s what they would like, but just because some people call all soda Coke does not me all sodas are Cokes. Besides, in a sense we are talking about the same thing, my version simply is cleaned of all the rationally inconsistent bits. The best picture of my god is Einstein’s Old One. The Base Force. Not, First Mover as that implies linearity and thus subjugation to our universe’s logic/physics.
I would but the point of this post is to stand against neoatheism for being a clever new fundamentalism. Religion has no right to intrude on matters of science and science is simply not equipped to tell people why they exist. Neoatheism is in effect science doing exactly that because it is taken as a set of positive claims, as opposed to merely opposing insanity, which by definition most religion is.
I claim my philosophy as a religion (Cryptarianism), and I call my god God for much the same reason I use the term polygamy instead of polyamory, that is, to pick a fight that needs to happen. I see efforts to rename my faith to something more palatable or less controversial as a cheap attempt at pandering, and an evasion of my responsibility to my species and abilities.
Atheism as a concept has limits and the meteoric rise of neoatheism needs to be checked with the same rational clarity atheists themselves claim to have by default. Indeed, this veneer of rationality is what makes the new missionary militant neoatheism all the more dangerous.
Hate stems from out of hand dismissal, and the rank and file neoatheists are not smarter than rank and file theists. In many functional ways it is a new religion or a philosophical fad. Neoatheists by and large think themselves as intelligent as Dawkins just because they’ve mastered a prefab list of arguments and they simply aren’t. Grabbing neoatheism off a bus or off a random snarky webpage is absolutely not the same as coming to it logically as the old guard did.
For the vast majority of neoatheists the whole idea serves as an excuse to be self indulgent. Again, this must be checked.
Ask them. I call mine “God” or refer to it functionally based on the context of the conversation at hand.
Again, ask them. But I feel compelled to note that my god by virtue of its logical antecedents shares its only two traits (existence and primacy) with all other concepts of God. My god is God Lite, that is it retains the only two traits that make a god a god, and no others. Now that’s not to say it does or does not have these extraneous traits, simply that it for whatever reason displays no evidence of them as far as I can tell.
For instance, nothing which could speak to me could convince me it is god. The nature of the universe precludes proof of this set. (For a more in depth exploration of that, which I am not endorsing by the way, check out http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html)
Awareness, logic, knowledge, existence, all of these have limits which transcend human limitation or potential for study. The neoatheist delusion that EVERY answer can be found with rationality and logic is a form of blind willful ignorance just the same as the most conflicted paradoxical fundamentalist yarn.
A full understanding of the cosmos demands answers to both how AND why.
Because it implies linearity and again subjugation to rules my god by definition is exempt from by virtue of its “location”.
I actually tried to pen a few new axioms when I first ran into them from this context… (http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/04/axiom-of-paradox.html)
I obviously failed, this idea is thoroughly exhausted and was before I was born. Though to my understanding there is no specifically named axiom of paradox. However it is clear that there are paradoxical axiomatic issues at work in the universe, but I don’t claim to understand them. I simply keep finding paradox at the heart of important philosophical and rational matters.
For example, QM’s hidden variable interpretation. What happens if that variable is true and yet forever unknowable? What impact does that have on science? Reminds me of the Incompleteness Theorem.
I’m waxing tangential. Apologies.
All of them.
Deduction.
Not to be snide, but reread the debate. My assertions of god are based completely on epistemological logic. Ironically (paradoxically?) my faith requires none.
The same logic would apply because the set of your universes (omniverse) still has traits and constraints. For example, we can know by virtue of our existence that no universe exists which has annihilated all others. My god is the source of those constraints and the “reason” reason works as it does and not in some other arbitrary way.
I have a big problem with Buddhism for many of the same reasons as I have a problem with neoatheism. Pretensions of intellectual completeness in a universe which is demonstrably and irrevocably incomplete annoy me to no end.
It’s a common problem, and in a sense inescapable because all reason depends first on axioms. All I can say is that my position is based on exploration of that problem. I can’t tell you what’s in the hole but I can tell you exactly how big it is, and what has to be down there.
The irony for me is that the logical process of my claim is accepted by virtually everyone if you add the word quantum. The populace is more than comfortable accepting a limited degree of resolution with regard to an answer in almost every walk of life, most notably quantum mechanics, but not when it comes to religion or god. When it comes to god they want to know the particle’s exact speed and position. Indeed some fans of QM don’t even need a particle to HAVE speed and position. For an extra dose of irony, quantum mechanics is the most accurately tested and robust theories put forth by mankind. Though it’s not without it’s problems. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=726)
Exactly. Truth itself is axiomatic at a fundamental level, that’s why rationality alone is insufficient.
I’m reminded of the Hawking quote above. And my answer is as I’ve stated. It is because the thing on the outside made it so. This is not the same as a god of the gaps argument because my implied advice is not “Well, God did it, end of story.” but rather “God did it, now let’s figure out how.”
The axiomatic bedrock can only be exposed through science. It’s the brush clearing away debris so we can get a picture of the fossil. You dig?
Those which are true. That is, those which can be shown to exist by whatever means which are consistent and rational.
Provision of axioms.
No. He doesn’t have them because they don’t apply. It’s like asking if a proton is republican.
My god from all indications is not even sentient. But I’m quick to add THAT type of statement is categorically not supportable. Again, my god only has two traits which are demonstrable, the rest is speculation.
Absolutely.
Existence and Primacy.
Not as such. Ethics clearly exist and are wildly adaptive but they for my part appear to be an emergent property. I don’t see any non-circumstantial evidence of divine sentience anywhere.
Absolutely. The laws of physics apply to every particle and they are perfectly enforced. The higher order justice you’re referring to is our problem and in many ways beyond the scope of God. Personal Idea: Perhaps the point of our existence is to solve that very problem?
A better question is were we ever alive in the first place. I’m made of the same stuff as a rock. Is a rock alive? I personally doubt time exists which makes the question moot. (Platonia and Tralfamadore for the win
)
That’s where science and reason come in. We agree on all axioms because we have no choice. People who reject an axiom are mentally ill or ignorant by definition.
That depends powerfully on how you define reality. My dreams for instance are VERY important to me. Are they a part of reality? In one sense they are real, neurological electrochemical events. But in another they are flights of mental fancy, unreal phantoms. Savvy?
For all I know it doesn’t require a separate reality to exist in. Again, all I know, and I suspect all that can be known, about my god is that it exists and that it has primacy.
It could very well BE that reality. My god could very easily be an environment and nothing more.
That’s a wonderful question. Have fun with it. I simply know that it is (did?) by virtue of this universe’s nature.
It’s like the sun. Its shiny and hot. How it comes to be shiny and hot is a matter for the heliologists and physicists.
My impression of motion is that it is illusory. I don’t think anything “moves” in any ultimate sense. This goes back to the nature of time, and the non-locality of the hidden variable.
I really haven’t thought about it. To me that seems microscopic. It’s important but not suitable given the flavor of my mind. I’m a top down kinda guy. Bottom up is just as valid and important, but I’m not at all suited for it.
#27 by Kevin at July 10th, 2010
| Quote
Do you refer to your God as Allah when you talk to Muslims?
The reason I advocate Creator is because I think it is more precise, not because it is pandering. If you refer to God as the Creator, some people will find it more intriguing. Though, I suppose in a sense using God might make sense, but wouldn’t you have to know your audience before making such an assessment? Besides, when arguing against neo-atheism for Deism, not to be confused with Creationism, wouldn’t using the term Creator be better, since the term creator is more vague than the term “God”?
I think we agree. It’s bad to assume we are smarter, or know more than we do. I suppose given the axiom of induction, a first cause is the only logical conclusion. However, saying that this first cause is anything more than the singularity, isn’t that proposing to know more than you do? Do you have a mathematical understanding of the singularity?
Don’t you mean nothing that could speak to you, and only speak to you, could convince you that it is the Creator? I assume burning bushes, pillars of fire, plagues, and prophecy might convince you?
I’ll get through that link at some point. Liking it so far.
How and why? Not necessarily. Even your Creator doesn’t really answer why, it just answers how. It sounds like your Creator’s answer to why is “because”, which is the same answer to “why” that you get minus the Creator. Unless you attribute anthropomorphic things like feelings (e.g. love, boredom), will “why” possibly make sense? But then what happens when The Creator asks why? It is still, just “because”. Unless the Creator had to perform some act to create himself, like travel to mordor and dump a ring into mt. doom, or worse, experience everything that every living sentient being will have to experience, but even then, it wouldn’t answer “why” the Creator went through with it instead of quitting or giving up.
How does “Creator” imply linearity and subjugation to rules? Besides, isn’t your “God” subject to rules, for instance, by definition he caused this Universe, he didn’t “uncause” it. I think the term “God” implies way much more crap than “Creator” since God is attiributed characteristics in The Bible.
Interesting, didn’t know about your blogspot blog. I’ll have to read it.
Anyway, speaking of paradoxes, have you read this book: Brief History of Paradox?
Can you construct the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion of a Creator syllogistically? It might be easier for me to understand where you’re coming from.
I don’t think so. An omniverse just is. Just like your Creator. Why are the constraints the way they are? Because. Why does your Creator exist? Because. The constaints need not have a “source” in the sense you are saying, just as the omniverse or your Creator doesn’t need a source.
Your logic must be based on axioms. What are they? I’d like to see them so I can see if they are “self evident”. Excuse me for not being able to pick them out of all the language in the debate. I’m not that detail oriented. Just a limitation of my neurology, I think.
So, for clarification, you’re uncertain if the Creator is sentient?
Isn’t it illogical to say “absolutely” then refer to “higher order justice” as being elusive? The set of justice includes “higher order justice”, and if this “higher order justice” is uncertain, “absolutely” doesn’t apply. So you’re uncertain that there is justice in the Universe?
Sentience is an axiom. Though life, I believe, has a pretty specific scientific definition. So you’re questioning the self? You don’t believe there is an axiom of the self, like Descartes claimed?
Well, ignorance is an axiom. This appears self-evident. But the self (another axiom?) appears to be doubted by yourself, though I wouldn’t consider you mentally ill. It is a valid question. Perhaps an even better question, is how can we know come to know whether we have a self or not? I think the question just leads to another axiom, an axiom of the self. It doesn’t matter how the self arises, it just matters whether or not it is there. I think the axiom of a self is true. But maybe I am just being lazy. It does appear that the self dies at brain death, however, it also appears that the “subjective self” comes from nothing. The problem is this dualistic (paradoxical?) notion of the self, the subjective and the objective. Looking out into the Universe, it would appear the subjective self is an illusion, and that all that exists is the objective self. I don’t know. What I do find frightening, is that I might come back, again and again. I’m not too keen on continuing to suffer in a Universe that doesn’t really care whether I suffer or not. I think anytime I meditate on the self, I always end up where I started, nowhere.
The argument about whether your dreams are reality is the same as whether or not you have a self, or whether or not, as you said in the past, angel dust users are “time folding”. It appears to be a hallucination, though I would say I’d like to believe in “the self”, however, I think to do so may be delusional.
Motion is axiomatic. Why would you believe the axiom is false?
…
You’re a top down kind of guy and you just spent the time quoting my response in detail so that you could address points in detail? That sounds “bottom” up to me. But perhaps neither top down nor bottom up is about details. Just generalities. Though, I would say that the set of all realities probably is macroscopic, not microscopic. Why do you think it is microscopic?
#28 by Innomen at July 10th, 2010
| Quote
No.
Only if I was a sycophant. Creator implies will and linearity and a possible lack of divinity. All of which are counter the definition of a bare minimum god.
I’m not trying to hide behind vagary. I’m not trying to win votes or be popular. I’m simply sharing the facts. I leave public relations to others more capable and more inclined.
Since I don’t understand the relevance I’m going to guess no. Do you mean the technological Singularity or like the singularity at the center of a black hole?
Not remotely. Nothing that can be experienced would convince me. I would need to be convinced directly bypassing my senses completely. If it’s a part of my reality then its bound by my reality, action taken of any kind is counter to the definition of a god.
You’ve not understood it. God is the answer to the fundamental why of existence by definition.
So what? I never said god had practical value. It’s simply required for existence by virtue of it’s nature. If there were actually nothing there, then there would be nothing here, or what is here would be some completely alien form.
What part of non sentient was unclear? Many of your comments for example strongly imply linear time. For purposes of this discussion our existence is a single instantaneous whole in 4 dimensions. You’re getting lost in details and delusions. You’re trying to drag an axiom into the realm of logical steps so you can refute them, but your effort to move the concept distorts it resulting in an effective strawman. I know you want me to show my god to be the classic delusion that the neoatheists so enjoy tearing apart but it isn’t.
Because it implies a position on a super scale where at one point existence was not, and then it was “created.” The very existence of this scale for god to occupy is a rule set, and you end up with the classic and exhaustively explored “well who made god then” or “turtles all the way down” type arguments. I have trouble conveying the concepts involved with speech but let me try again… God is the set which define sets. I’ll bet that doesn’t remotely help.
Rules imply a will in conflict with a setting, an existence separate from its environment. As I said god Is an environment and it has no will. It is not bound by these constraints it Is these constraints. You seem incapable of thinking outside of the rule set in which you exist. Maybe its like how trying to imagine a new color or visualize a hypersphere is for me. Simply not within the parameters of my neurological hardware. If it were, how would you know?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe they named their god after his species type (for lack of a better term) to cause this confusion? (You should check out the http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/b2544/The-Perfect-Heresy/Stephen-OShea/?si=0) I’m not going to name it something else, because god is what it is. Making up a new word is counter productive and callow.
I have 7 of them. All defunct and any relevant posts have been migrated here and updated.
Nope, is it free? I’m reading this at the moment. http://www.feedbooks.com/book/4949
I don’t what what syntax you would accept if my exhaustive answering of each of your questions and responses is insufficient. Provide me a template and I’ll fill in the blanks?
As to how I arrived at my picture of god, I’ve already explained in excruciating detail. But put simply: Axioms exist and persist == God.
You’re using linear logic to explain why a non linear spontaneous existence can exist without cause. Acasual and casual are positions on the same scale when the entire scale fails to apply at the level under discussion. Acasual is just a way of saying inserted into the timeline in a non traditional way. It is not the same as saying devoid of timeline.
You can logically state an omniverse devoid of my sense of god, but its like saying an ax without an ax head or an ax handle. You can play Kantian existence doubt games all you like, that’s why nothing could convince me it is god or an agent of god, those same issues, language allows for it. But you succeed merely in deceiving yourself.
I already answered that. You’re approaching argumentum ad nauseam. As before, word for word. Those which are true. That is, those which can be shown to exist by whatever means which are consistent and rational. Do you want a list of all known axioms? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_axioms There’s a good start.
That’s a red herring. I don’t know if you are doing it on purpose or if it’s a manifestation of some lower order drive. You have an opinion and you simply want me to restate mine in different ways until I do so badly once at which point you can pick it apart. Should my restatement be perfect you will claim (or have) continued misunderstanding and demand further clarification until I err, lather rinse repeat.
If you don’t understand by now having read every word of this post, you’re not going to understand. And that may be my failing as a teacher, but fortunately I’m not in the missionary business.
Again, Nothing can be known for certain about god except its two primary facets. But given its nature sentience would seem unattainable if not completely useless. So no I’m not absolutely certain, but I personally believe with infinite conviction that it is not sentient. And if it were it would be so totally alien it might as well not be. It would be like asking if gravity is sentient. I don’t know, could be, but I strongly doubt it.
That’s a sophist trick. If you want to constrain the hypothetical like that then of course my answer is whatever you want it to be. You mean justice like will little billy get presents this year because he’s been a good boy, and I mean justice like gravity doesn’t play favorites. If you demand that the word justice include both, then no, there obviously is no justice.
Sentience seems a bit complicated to put in the same list as the plank length and the like. For me it’s a bit like the uncertainty principal. Sentience may very well be unprovable in the detection sense. But I think it has antecedents.
“The simplest thought, like the concept of the number one, has an elaborate logical under pinning. The brain has it’s own language for testing the structure and consistency of the world.” -Carl Sagan
It seems to me very intuitive to imagine that sentience has a similar “logical underpinning” which would by definition take it out of the running for an axiom. But then again, there’s always cogito ergo sum.
It seems I’m infinitely biased being that I feel a perfectly convincing sense of sentience. Though the nature of reality precludes me from convincing you for the very same reasons nothing could convince me that it is god.
Not really. Is a virus alive? How about fire? This is an old debate. For my own part, life is a case by case assessment. For example I don’t consider ants to be truly alive, but I could see an ant colony being alive. (GEB for the win.) ultimately to me it’s a meaningless word like “natural.”
The sense of self is as much a product of our brain as a sense of smell. Buddhism is about engendering numbness of this sense. This numbness is a profound experience since the rest of the brain keeps right on going. Leaving you with experiences that seem to be flowing nowhere. Or rather creating the illusion that you are everything and nothing. It’s like thinking of blindness and senses humans don’t even have. What color are x-rays or magnetism? They aren’t black. They are absent.
A sentient being has a self. By definition. If you annihilate yourself you cease being sentient. Now as established previously being sentient is not conveyable ultimately. Which opens the door to philosophical zombies. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
So the short answer is “we” can’t but “I” can.
Agreed. Hence my goal of physical immortality. I think a life and death stage of existence is infantile. Once we kill death and stop breeding, our real evolution will begin. But that’s completely a personal thing.
Yes. But only in so far as the effort to convince others. I’m convinced for my own part and the position of others in an of itself is meaningless to me.
I think you need to sharpen your conception of that constitutes an axiom.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya
Why would I believe motion is an illusion? Because motion is the transition of distance over time and I have strong reason to disbelieve time. Zeno’s paradox for the win.
Heh, publicly on the subject of all reality. Pretty macroscopic.
I don’t?
#29 by Kevin at July 10th, 2010
| Quote
Well, I thought about quoting point by point, but I think in the best interest of getting to the point, a more general response would be more productive. In fact, I had already gone through it completely step by step when I decided to delete it and write this comment
. Oh well, I learned something in the process. Anyway.
So, it appears you believe in a “God”, with its only knowable attributes as being primal and existant. Basically, I think you’re argument is the same as TAG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God. I think it goes something like this:
Everything needs a cause.
Thus Axioms need a cause.
There is no known cause for Axioms.
Therefore, there is a cause that is primal and existent.
This cause is God.
The problem that I see, is that you can replace God with omniverse, and singularity, and the logic is still sound. So, let me ask this, what is the difference between “God” and the Big Bang singularity?
#30 by Innomen at July 10th, 2010
| Quote
Correct. Primacy being shorthand for enforcer of physical constants and shaper of axioms.
Not at all, though Matthew Slick’s TAG is somewhat close. Where he uses logical absolutes, I use axioms which would include logical absolutes, and I reject the implication of a “mind.” Besides, I could picture other universes where our logical absolutes don’t apply.
I suppose my argument in that context would be that because axioms exist there must be something transcendent “below” them.
Barring the linguistic limits imposed by the notion of time, yes you pretty well have it.
Except that omniverse and singularity and any other non-novel term would have traits beyond existence and primacy, the traits which when paired become god.
Example: You may posit an alternate explanation, like say the flying spaghetti monster which is primal, existent, and noodly. It is not god because god has ONLY the two knowable traits. See what I mean? Now god may very well be noodly, but it can’t be known either way. Adding noodly (or any other traits) to my god makes him a different claim and subject to the burden of proof for the new facet(s).
You see I don’t consider this faith based. I’ve arrived at my god. To add noodly to my god would demand faith. For my part primacy and existence do not require faith. Noodly would. All other traits that could be ascribed to god are either matters of faith or parts of observable reality, neither of which apply to god.
My god is compatible with whatever cosmology happens to be correct and infinite incorrect ones. So I’m hesitant to answer the question in a serious way. My snide answer would be the big bang is a cosmology, and god is not. But I see what you’re driving at so let me try…
The initial item which exploded and gave rise to this universe (assuming that cosmology is correct) is a function of the nature of the reality in which it sat and proceeded according to physical laws. Again assuming linearity, despite the Big Bang being non linear since time was also a result of its detonation apparently, god would be why it occurred in the way that it did, indirectly. God came “before” (I know I know) the singularity.
In a way the big bang is too specific. I don’t see any real reason to assume that the big bang itself will not yield to some other immediate non-god cause thus making direct relationships between god and it silly, like saying god causes thunder. I think the big bang is explorable, (perhaps the intersection between our universe and another?) but that’s just me, I’m not really qualified to say, cosmology isn’t really my thing. If it proves to be the furthest back we’re capable of going then yes for the sake of definition god will have caused it, not been the result of it as with the rest of observable reality.
#31 by Kevin at July 12th, 2010
| Quote
Yeah, and since I’m not a string theorist, I have nothing more to offer, really.
#32 by Innomen at July 12th, 2010
| Quote
Well, thanks for your time, I did realize through our discussion that what I have faith in is that existence and axioms need a foundation of some kind. By definition I have no evidence that they do since I can not bring things into existence (or remove them) nor can I author new axioms or alter existing ones.
I suppose if science were to ever put itself in a position to do those things I would be forced to accept whatever picture they offer as explanation for that ability. However, I believe this will never occur. Do you think it’s reasonable to view these actions as firmly outside the abilities of science permanently?
P.S. http://vimeo.com/317469 Seen that?
#33 by Kevin at July 14th, 2010
| Quote
what I started writing: Thanks for your time as well. Sorry I left so curtly, it wasn’t anything personal, it was just that I didn’t want us to spin our wheels needlessly. I’m really getting to a point where simplification of a person’s point needs to be my primary goal. I start throwing out all these questions and assertions without first asking for a summary of someone’s point. Something I have to work on.
what I decided to write: a priori / a posteriori? Is that basically the problem?
I’m thinking in possibilities and probabilities these days. So, to answer your question “if it’s reasonable to view these actions as firmly outside the abilities of science permanently”, possibly? And to further convolute things, I don’t think I have the thinking power and/or knowledge to calculate a reasonable probability. It may be a pussified view, but what else can I do without certainty?
Fact is, you may be right, but then Christians may be right too. Seriously. I haven’t ruled it out as a possibility. But in my mind the probability is that the scientists are right, and at this point the “primal existent” thing, at least for our Universe, is the singularity. But what *is* a singularity? Really? Is it like asking what infinity is, mathematically? I have no idea, and this troubles me.
A deist on #scripture on undernet asked me what god I believed in. I basically evaded the question. He called me a worm. Then he asked me how many demons and gods I believed there were. I told him “possibly infinite, probably 0″. *THEN* I started to hear voices. *facepalm*. He wished me the best, then I decided talking to him was a waste of time, because he was so quick to go to the ad hominem. I really find mud slinging frustrating, it is such a waste of energy. I spent the rest of the time lurking the channel and perusing the other channels I frequent…but the voices, and the conversations that others had that night in that channel, bothered me to the point that I couldn’t fall asleep that night. The voices have since stopped…but who knows, maybe it’s a hardware problem, brain.
Here is some total mental masturbation: I find it kind of punny that your God and the big bang singularity could be the same thing, since the singularity appears to be primal and existent, m theory not withstanding. The so-called pun is that you’re such a fan of the technological singularity, that the two just seem to fit. Not sure if you’re a fan of Grease, but Ha ha ha.
Here is me waxing on about what I’m “going to do” which sheds some light on how *fucking ignorant* I am: Speaking of a big bang singularity, I asked in #math on freenode about the singularity. Was pointed to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems, and told that I would have to understand both linear algebra and vector calculus in order to understand it. I got a “C” in linear algebra at a rudimentary state college
. I downloaded two books, one on linear algebra and one on vector calculus, I could probably provide links if you’re interested in the books, they’re under the GNU open source license I think, but I’m actually trying to be brief. At any rate, between trying to learn python, perl, java, and c, and probably failing, I may not get anywhere. But I’m going to try.
P.S. I think I did see http://vimeo.com/317469. I’ll watch it again. Is there something in particular that I should be looking for? Incidentally, off the top of my rather poor memory, I remember doing some research on the topic and found some evidence that pointed to “10 dimensions” as being erroneous. But again, that’s just someone else’s opinion unless I learn the math for myself .
P.P.S. Here is some emotional faith based subjective “crazy” talk: There are times, when people are talking about God, the Creator, as this sentient entity that hears all, and knows all, to the point that Pronoun knows what we think before we are even thinking it, I Believe. Capital B, all bets are off AND all chips are in. The Hope that I feel at these fleeting moments, leads me to tears that I struggle against. But the moment doesn’t last, and as soon as it comes I return to the realization that it doesn’t matter *what* I believe. All the Universe cares about is processing its “rules”, and what I believed returns from whence it came, irrelevancy.
#34 by Innomen at July 14th, 2010
| Quote
No problem and I have a similar issue as well, as society and humanity’s knowledge base become more complicated the rules of logical debate are going to become ever more important, and making clear your logical foundations is a required step at the outset of a logical debate. Else as you suggest you end up talking past each other or argue even if you actually agree.
However I feel the need to add that some ideas are not compressible without loss of fidelity as a result of the structure of language and social conventions on communication.
Well would a specific example of such an action help? I mean atheists love to refute the white light version of god with clever impossibilities, things god can’t do for largely semantic reasons and assumptions of universal logic, but they never do the same thing to science, despite the fact that science itself has always asserted a finite scope.
Something by definition science will never be able to do is change any physical constant(barring exit of our reality and influencing it from the outside). And ironically science is more bound to the conditions of this cosmos than god is since god would already be outside, science would have to first find an exit.
Science will never be able to prove any given person is sentient. Science will never be able to show you what I see as the color green with certainty. And perhaps more to the point science can never tell you why you are here. It can only tell you how you came to be here.
Go the route of super position, if you can’t answer a specific look for a general that universally applies. In a way that’s the whole goal of science. A standard model tested in miniature producing rules that can be scaled up to include everything observable.
But in this context the statement is dismissive and suspect. The Christians famously aren’t right on a whole host of fronts. They aren’t even in agreement on what their own book means. And their claims are so massively complicated and subjective they become unfalsifiable. My claims may also by definition be unfalsifiable but for very different reasons, namely an apparently built in ambiguity about the fabric of reality, not because of my logical inability to make a specific claim. Besides, one could falsify my position, simply show an alternate mechanism for the formation of existence, like say create a device which adds to the universe without cost (producing something from nothing), or alter, system wide, a physical constant.
Prior to my migration to deism I was a strong atheist, as in I saw proof for a lack of god. This proof took the form of logical arguments and tearing apart the conflicted definition of my opponents. I saw the universe as having no need for a cause because the moment of the big bang was composed of compressed time as well as space allowing for a seeming paradox to be real. Time compressed, curved, touched, and caused itself. But I realized that the physics that allowed for this had to have been in place prior to the bang or the bang would not have worked. (Try to ignore the linearity of that, language prevents me from expressing what I “mean” clearly.)
My point is that we are probably both right and that’s where I get my position on science vs spirituality and how vs why. Science can tell me what was written but it can’t tell me where the paper came from. The big bang almost surly happened, your singularity almost surly existed, but regardless of the math of it, in general I can ask why did anything, including the big bang, bother to exist at all?
Heh, I’m reminded of QM’s range of answers sliminess. Obviously you were correct, but the answer is useless. It’s like responding to a hideously complex multiplication of two posatives problem with “some positive number.”
Really? (You won’t find me attacking your position based on your mental health status. I will not say you’re wrong because you’re crazy, but I may call you crazy because you’re wrong.
)
The brain obviously has multiple levels of processing, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them. What did the voices say? Assuming it wasn’t like a murmuring cocktail party effect. I often ask myself a question and then simply wait. Sometimes even days later the answer will simply occur to me, perhaps you receive the same information as a vocal hallucination. Sure there aren’t people standing there talking to you, but that’s not to say the information conveyed is unreal. If you ask yourself whats 5 times 5 and a voice replies 25, its not wrong simply because the voice isn’t real.
I don’t think they are possibly the same thing, the scope of each is different, the formation of *this* universe is not the same as the basis of all existence unless you show that this universe is conclusively all of existence, which is impossible. But still, yes that is funny.
I appreciate the offer but I don’t need to know Japanese to say conclusively it’s a language. Don’t get hung up on the details, because in this context the details are irrelevant. Can any math equation change an axiom? No, at BEST it can refine our understanding of existing axioms. Thus I can make statements about the whole of math without understanding all of math. Wiki Godel, and then read Godel Escher Bach.
You’ll enjoy it a LOT more than any inquiry into math from a technical perspective.
No, it just gets one thinking in the proper direction, trying to see behind the mirror at a cognitive level so to speak. And you’re right I don’t believe in that model, because of its liberal use of the word “possible” and that fact that its mainly playing with abstractions. It’s useful as an art form and as a thought experiment, just as with math, but it is hardly solid in any practical sense.
The infinite universe type thing for example, neatly side stepped by the video’s use of the word possible, is in conflict or begs a question. 1. What renders a given concept possible or impossible in the context of existence? 2. If there are infinite universes with how come one hasn’t destroyed all the others, if that’s not possible, see #1 (or why (or god))?
I appreciate you sharing that. For my own part the notions of simulation reduce me to happy tears. The idea that all reality is false in someway, thus rendering moot all the tortures and injustices, and that my dreams are just as real in a real sense as reality, is deeply appealing.
I think its because a simulation can not fail. It exists to answer a question and though the answer may not be what you wanted it is still an answer.
What if mine is the maximum suffering? Given how little I actually suffer, that would be positive beyond words. But it would also mean you’re a phantom p-zed, and clearly you aren’t :/
And for the record even if I knew for a fact it was all a sim, that wouldn’t change my behavior, but I would demand some edits.
“What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream?” – Nine Inch Nails, With Teeth, Right Where It Belongs (this is the version I like best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRBCVR2aTD8 )
Matrix, 13th Floor, and rather spectacularly, the Australian aboriginal cosmology of The Dreaming, and or the Simulation hypothesis. I wrote a short story once about the ultimate goal from an ethical standpoint of technology. About a man who’s job it is to go back in time and prevent torture without disturbing the timeline. It’s crap, but I’m proud of the concept.
Shameless plug: http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=175 Beware, solipsististic existential doubt can be soul crushing. http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10269.aspx
#35 by Kevin at July 14th, 2010
| Quote
I’m not sure that science’s scope is finite, because the scope of mathematics is not. If we disagree on this, perhaps it’s because we disagree on the definition of what science is.
As far as sentience goes, it appears that the self-evident thing here, the axiom, is that sentience is caused by the brain. Without brain, no sentience in reality. So, it may be that science doesn’t have to prove sentience, because it doesn’t have to prove axioms. I think the subjectiveness of color is the same problem. It all depends on whether or not the brain is the seat of all subjective experience, and if it is, then the brain could be mapped and the experience of green may be a certain group of neurons firing in a particular sequence. It’s possible I’m wrong, it’s possible that sentience is caused by “God”, but I don’t think this is a very strong probability.
They agree on a lot though. God, Jesus, Heaven. But, considering their track record, probably don’t have a clue. But their faith isn’t entirely without logic. They hold to the axiom that the Bible’s infallibility is self-evident, then they run with that axiom to come up with a whole bunch of stuff based on what the Bible says. Proving it wrong is essentially unfalsifiable, even if you try to point out discrepencies and inconsistencies in the Bible, it just becomes an infinite process of apologetics.
Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that physics would have had to exist before the big bang, since as far as I know, at time t=0 the singularity is undefined. You might then say that math had to exist, but math might be the primal existent force that you call “God”. Still though, I don’t see how you can jump to the conclusion that the laws of physics themselves aren’t the “primal existent” force you call “God”. Maybe I’m just not capable of thinking about it the way you do.
Because? Seriously, if that answer is good enough for “God”, who’s definition is only primacy and existence, then why isn’t it good enough for the Big Bang singularity?
There isn’t anything slimy about it. It’s just honest. What’s more slimy, admitting you can’t arrive at a solid conclusion, or believing that there are n number of demons for no apparent reason? I really think the question was a trap. You ask the question, the person responds with essentially “I don’t know”, and then the accuser points his finger and call the respondent a fool. I’m not even saying it’s impossible to know, epistemologically, I’m just saying this is what I know.
I really get the feeling sometimes, that people aren’t really interested in figuring anything out, they just want to win arguments.
I read the Godel wiki. I’ll check out Godel Escher Bach. I think the details are important, because they often times tell us how an axiom is self-evident. So yeah, I agree with this article that studying mathematics daily is probably a good idea: http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/math-every-day.
When I watched it again, I basically arrived at the conclusion that I don’t really get it. I’ll have to watch it several more times, and perhaps practice with the geometry myself to really get it.
I see your point regarding “begging the question”. The question of why one Universe doesn’t destroy all the others is an intriguing one. However, I would say that the laws of the Universe and your “God” may actually be one and the same, because reality wouldn’t exist as we know it if “God” hadn’t caused things to happen the way they did. And then, with Occam’s Razor, extract “God”, and the laws of the Universe themsevles become the primal existent cause. As soon as you apply primal existent cause to something “outside” the Universe, I just ask why not apply this to the laws of the Universe, which could be considered “outside” of it, conceptually. To be honest, I still don’t see the difference between a singularity and your “God”, probably because I don’t see the singularity as something “inside” the Universe.
I appreciate you sharing this as well, but to be honest, I don’t get it. I’ve never actually *really* believed reality is false in someway for any length of time. Anytime the thought comes to mind, I simply test reality, and disappoint any sense that it isn’t real. Hmmm, there might be some intriguing connection here with lucid dreaming. Testing reality is an important component to it. Do you lucid dream?
It’s a good song. Are you a fan of Erik Satie? I like how hypnotic his music sounds. No lyrics though.
Yeah, I read it. Interesting idea.
#36 by Innomen at July 16th, 2010
| Quote
That’s more than a little scary and why I feel compelled to speak up about the emerging fundamentalism associated with neoatheism. Science’s scope is extremely limited. It can only tell us how things occur. Its nature is the analysis of a system, it can not answer questions of purpose of any kind or any sort of why question. When scientists use the word why they are actually using a grammatical shortcut of a how question. It’s a linguistic problem. How is process, why is purpose. Process is never equal to purpose.
You can’t even prove sentience exists outside your own head. I could very well be your hallucination. And for all you know your potentially singular instance of sentience is actually caused by your left kidney. Just because all the hallucinations indicate it comes from the head, really in no ultimate way does that prove anything.
I agree of course that sentience lies in the brain, my point is we can’t prove it ever. Science can’t touch sentience. For example, how I reconciled it when I was religious as a child was “the brains is the lens through which the soul shines” that is while playing with the brain causes obvious cognitive effects in my view that was merely because we were dirtying the lens. Science can’t answer such metaphysical questions, because it is grounded in the physical by definition.
Obligation or not it lacks the ability. Prove you’re sentient to a scientific certainty, then get back to me and we’ll peer review.
But that would give no indication of the qualia of the experience. Reproducing the same firing pattern in my head may show up as red, perhaps all plant life is red to me. You see?
Setting aside this tangent, no they don’t. The mind of god, the nature of Jesus, and the character of heaven are all fiercely disputed among Christians. Pretty much the only thing they agree on was god made reality.
An axiom has to be true for it to be an axiom. They may wish it to be an axiom but it isn’t.
Because it proceeded in such an orderly fashion that we know about it. You are getting lost in jargon again. I ask you why did the singularity exist? Setting aside the question of can something with zero dimensionality be said to exist, the very definition of a singularity is the inability to understand past it based on evidence. To then take that as evidence for the existence of nothing prior is circular logic. There is no evidence for existence prior to that point that is therefor evidence that nothing existed prior to that point. It’s like saying the room ceases to exist when you close your eyes just because you fail to have visual evidence of its existence. (see my post on quantum mechanics linked above)
This is why we have philosophy and epistemology. Science loves to bury this fact, but the very foundations of the concept of knowledge itself are shaky. We used to have logicians. I actually have a few logic text books which I nabbed from the free box at school. No more.
So much faith in fact that you above admitted a complete inability to perceive a limit to its scope at all despite the fact that you yourself ARE such a limit. And if you doubt the evidence of your own existence then how in the world can you accept the evidence presented by others who’s existence is on even shakier ground?
Math is an abstraction, a product of a mind, an arrangement of concepts, it no more existed than the 5th season of lost existed. but I see what you meant. Kinda goes to Matt’s TAG.
It’s a seamless progression. It’s one more why in the chain of questions. You’ve accepted a concept of what constitutes a reasonable exploration of reality, and that concept breaks down at the level of evidence-free fact. Godel: The universe has two choices, either it will contain true and unprovable statements (like god) or it is incomplete. Since by definition it can’t be incomplete… *shrugs* All events proceed orderly from axiomatic physical laws.
It’s like the QM post, you may choose to believe that a particle has no position or speed until it is measured, I choose to believe that is has both I must simply pick which one I’m going to know to what degree. (uncertainty principal) The cat is either alive or dead, the notion of a superposed state is like a singularity, its an artifact of error.
Because, the big bang singularity only explains (maybe) our universe and its current shape. It does not explain from whence sprang the laws of physics, nor why they are stable, nor the other universes which clearly exist, nor does it explain existence itself. It ONLY answers how our universe progressed. By your logic the singularity didn’t happen because since we only have theoretical evidence for its nature up to a few picoseconds after it began, and we can NEVER have evidence from before or the instant of, this evidence free zone could therefor not have existed. At some point to form a complete picture you must accept things that can produce no evidence. It’s like finding a hole. You can deduce facets of its nature by absence.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/does-our-universe-live-inside-a-.html
If you reject the evidence of existence itself as demanding a non linear foundation, then the big bang itself as proof of a singularity must also be rejected on the same grounds. This is why science breaks down at singularities, not because the rules of reality fold but because our abstracts of them fold.
It’s like the recent picture of the sun as a dark matter collector solving the the solar composition problem ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/dark-matter-sun/ ). It’s been that way the whole time, long before life existed on this planet, much less life capable enough to theorize the existence of dark matter. Only our abstractions have changed. Science is a process of mind, nothing more.
Singularities trouble the physicists that encounter them because they know they are almost certainly mathematical artifacts, indices of error, not truth.
I’m just saying you didn’t say “I don’t know”, you gave a range, an answer. (possibly infinite probably 0) And that’s like QM’s whole probability shtick.
People hate my view because it’s a conversation stopper. They don’t like being irrevocably stripped of the opportunity to equal themselves with god. They don’t like hearing that there are portions of existence permanently beyond even the conception of understanding much less control. Like being alive isn’t awesome enough. People want control, and they want to know. And saying that I know for a fact that they can’t ever know is a cosmic buzz kill. Like I if tore the last page out of a book and handed it to them they want to say the second to last page is the last page rather than face up to never knowing the ending.
Being life forms in a biosphere we know movement is life, finding out there’s no where to go is, distressing. Cognitive dissonance for the win. Even false certainty is adaptive because a bad decision is often better than no decision.
Really, we’re lucky the universe is even remotely simple or stable enough to accumulate even the most infinitesimally small and accurate understanding of it.
I mean seriously, just look at this shit. ( http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347 )
You’re probably right. I don’t have a mind for details, I work top down in many ways. But math in and of itself to me is just so much of a game to me. (Reminds me of the glass bead game in Magister Ludi) People get lost in it, its important, no doubt but it’s still just an abstraction. As Godel showed, it’s limited.
You’ve just used “laws of the universe” to mean exactly what I mean when I say god. Again, I have no idea of its nature I only said its there, and what it does. The razor, while a solid precept, is a touch over used and doesn’t apply here because the elements are equivalent. People often misuse the razor’s point to equate simple with comfortable.
Its not a competition, as you and others have framed it, the big bang doesn’t even pretend to answer the questions for which god is the answer. Even if this universe completely bootstrapped itself into existence from nothing, that doesn’t answer where existence itself came from or why it is this way and not some arbitrary other way. I’ll also add that the notion that all existence is composed of what we can see to me just smells as dim as the geocentric model of the universe. Like goldfish thinking the whole world is the aquarium.
The singularity has traits beyond existence and primacy. For example we know by definition it no longer exists. (if time exists of course)
Why do you keep capping and quoting god? Still trying to strap a beard and a penis on it?
Yesiree bob, though less and less. My dream checks now fail. >.< All I've done is increase the fidelity of my dreams. Lights work in my dreams, I can read text, (recently I even had a dream that had subtitles) operate electronic devices, and my "powers" are diminishing. As a crazy what if, maybe this is like a death clock. That the day my dreams reach parity with reality is the day I'll die heh. One thing that I never seem to notice no matter how much I train are novel situations. Like I'll just accept that I'm back in school or what have you. It's probably a good thing. I could see me retreating into a dream state in lieu of a real life if given the chance.
Nopers but I’ll probably check it out. I like the instrumental stuff so long as its not overly simple.