|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted June 21, 2013 03:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It appears you are unfamiliar with the three basic axiomatic concepts in philosophy (existence exists is one)
I'm curious, what are the other two?
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 03:52 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:07, 21 Jun 2013.
|
Existence exists is a tautology. It's no different than saying "a square is a square" I don't know where you got the idea that philosophy has three basic axioms in general that applies to every philosopher or whose 3 axioms are those but one things for sure, if you claim that something beyond reason can be rational and defend it with a sentence such as "God intervening in his creation is reasonable" it is definitely not me who has to do the reading. Reasonable and rational are not synonyms, and reasonable is not even a proper term for the matter.
Edit: Oh, now I see, so you probably googled philosophy + axiom and with a quick reading of your clicky, arrived at the conclusion that all philosophy is based on that three. Well, sorry to disappoint but it's not. Law of Identity of Aristotales isn't even used much anymore. And mind you, unlike in religion, even your clicky suggests a logical definition why an axiom should be considered one: They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial.
So, again we have a reasoning and it is categorically different than the dogma of religion.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:04 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Are you aware that Objectivism (which is what that site is endorsing) endorses both atheism and ethical egoism, positions that are very much contrary to Christianity? Also, there are philosophical positions that reject those axioms, such as that consciousness is an illusion and doesn't actually exist.
artu:
In the context of Objectivism (which is what Elodin is referring to), "existence exists" is not tautological because it's not meant to be taken literally. What it literally means is something more like "reality is independent of consciousness".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
... but one things for sure, if you claim that something beyond reason can be rational and defend it with a sentence such as "God intervening in his creation is reasonable" it is definitely not me who has to do the reading. Reasonable and rational are not synonyms, and reasonable is not even a proper term for the matter.
Quote:
rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
It is reasonable that God would be involved in his creation. I do not agree with the deistic idea of a God who created everything but who is not interested in his creation and who does not interact with it. Such a viewpoint is not reasonable to me and certainly goes against my experiences.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:17 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:18, 21 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Are you aware that Objectivism (which is what that site is endorsing) endorses both atheism and ethical egoism, positions that are very much contrary to Christianity?
I did not endorse everything on the site. I merely googled "existence exists" and pointed to the site for the three axioms. As I stated (and artu rejected) philosophy, and all beliefs, begins with certain unproved assumptions.
Existence exists, consciousness exists, and things exist (and differ from other things via characteristics) are truths I accept.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
artu:
In the context of Objectivism (which is what Elodin is referring to), "existence exists" is not tautological because it's not meant to be taken literally. What it literally means is something more like "reality is independent of consciousness".
In the context of objectivism, you are right. But Elodin was not defending objectivism, he was defending axioms come out of the blue, just like religious revelations.
@Elodin
Rational in the context we've been using the term means something that can be understood with reasoning. Hence, if something is beyond reason it can not be rational
Reasonable in the context you use the word (It's reasonable God intervenes in his own creation) means, expected, probable, fair. It has nothing to do with the question if a universe full of miracles can be understood within rationality or not.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As I stated (and artu rejected) philosophy, and all beliefs, begins with certain unproved assumptions.
I gave up on books, but maybe, you should start to read what you google:
They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:26 AM |
|
|
@mvass
Quote:
In science, if you perform an experiment and get statistically significant results, and your results are replicated, I assume you'd call that "evidence", though you only have statistical significance and not absolute certainty.
Well that's an important distinction, don't you think? The rational conclusion would be that something probably is the case, and we can even specify a tolerance level. It wouldn't be a rational, scientific conclusion to say it is proven with no doubt, would it? But maybe "rational" and "scientific" mean two very different things to you?
Quote:
Unless you're trying to disprove something, your null hypothesis is usually "[something] has no effect", and see if you can reject it. So when it comes to atheism and theism, the null hypothesis is "there is no deity", and there is no evidence that leads to its rejection.
Saying there is no evidence to support that something is true is different than saying there is evidence that something is false. You cannot conclude that there are no aliens out there based on the lack of data supporting the existence of aliens.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. I certainly think it seems more rational to conclude that something doesn't exist in the absence of evidence than that something does exist in the absence of evidence. Then again, science is different than mathematical logic, so "rationality" could have a slightly different meaning, depending on the context. For instance, would you say there are "degrees" of rationality? Or is it all or nothing?
I think if you're going to be strictly correct - since there is no evidence to support either conclusion (and can't be, frankly) - then the only truly rational position is that neither conclusion (there is a God, there isn't a God) can be called proven beyond doubt - certainly not based on empirical data. You can't say, "There is no data to support the existence of God, therefore God does not exist". It is not a logical conclusion, because anyone could say, "Well there may be no data to support the existence of God, but that's just because we haven't found it yet." That may be an overly pedantic stance, I admit. But in the end, I question whether the question of God can have a rational answer whatsoever, because it's not the kind of thing that can supported or not supported with evidence.
Fundamentally, I think it comes down to what you're using as a definition of "rational". It don't think it's necessarily an easy term to define and it can mean different things in different contexts. I certainly feel my atheistic belief is the product of a rational thought process, brought about by my understanding of science and probability, with a smattering of incredulity at religious dogma and a bit of emotion too if I'm being honest. Looked at from a historical standpoint, I also don't see any particular reason why any one of the thousands of religions out there should be any more right than another, which gives me, in my opinion, a rational reason for doubt that any of them could be true.
Even so, I think before you start analyzing what I'm saying too deeply, we first come to an understanding of what you mean by "rational". It might be different than the way I'm using it... and I admit I'm using it more than one way in this very post. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:59 AM |
|
|
As I said, only in logic and mathematics is absolute certainty possible, but knowledge doesn't require certainty, only high probability. If considering the possibility of whether there are aliens, you are determining your belief about aliens' existence, not whether aliens actually exist - you could easily have a mistaken belief. If aliens don't exist, they still won't exist even if you believe in them, or vice versa. Since you are determining what to believe and not whether aliens actually exist, you can say, "There is no evidence indicating the existence of aliens, so I believe that they don't exist." If someone said, "Maybe they exist but we haven't found data yet", the correct answer to that is that it's not logically impossible for aliens to exist, but that there is reason to believe that they don't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 07:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
As I stated (and artu rejected) philosophy, and all beliefs, begins with certain unproved assumptions.
I gave up on books, but maybe, you should start to read what you google:
They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial.
Maybe you should read it. Saying that the assumptions can't be denied without referencing the assumptions is not proving the assumptions to be true. Those statements are assumed to be true and are unprovable.
Quote:
In the context of objectivism, you are right. But Elodin was not defending objectivism, he was defending axioms come out of the blue, just like religious revelations.
I've never said revelations come "out of the blue" or that philosophical assumptions come "out of the blue." Perhaps you could stop making snide comments about persons you are in a debate with and instead focus on their arguments.
Quote:
Rational in the context we've been using the term means something that can be understood with reasoning. Hence, if something is beyond reason it can not be rational
You mean rational as you wish to define it, not as the English language defines it. HOWEVER, nothing about my religion is "beyond reason." As I've said, I have rational reasons for all of my beliefs.
On the other hand, I have found no rational basis for claiming that God does not exist. If a person says "God does not exist" he is effectively claiming the ability to see everything in the universe (material and spiritual) and everything that exists beyond the universe, past, present, and future, and thereby determined God does not exist. Otherwise the very most he could say is "I don't believe God exists."
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 08:07 AM |
|
|
And "God" can refer to the Christian God, to an abstract idea of a Creator or to just about anything the human mind can fathom regarding a higher power, therefore, saying "God does not exist 100%" is not rational to me.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 08:57 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:07, 21 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
And "God" can refer to the Christian God, to an abstract idea of a Creator or to just about anything the human mind can fathom regarding a higher power, therefore, saying "God does not exist 100%" is not rational to me.
Religious people can be so impossible sometimes... No, this whole thing started in a thread about Christianity and the difference between a deistic approach and theistic approach and their consequences referring to the rationality of the universe was the first distinction mentioned. So we are not talking about any kind of God. I won't even bother to answer the "God does not exist 100%" thing for the hundredth time. I consider bringing up stuff already answered in this thread which I happen to know you read, as if it hasn't been, the very kind of trolling you say you don't intend to do. That was quick.
Quote:
You mean rational as you wish to define it, not as the English language defines it. HOWEVER, nothing about my religion is "beyond reason." As I've said, I have rational reasons for all of my beliefs.
No. Rationality in a technical sense refer to something very specific and if you even read the two pages here, the link Corribus gave or the thread where this started you can easily tell the difference between rational in that sense and "reasonable" as you used the word in everyday sense. It is very very obvious when we are talking about what are the circumstances for the universe to be rationally understandable, we are not using the word reason as in "hey, the prices are quite reasonable in this diner."
Observing natural law and formulating its principles demands that law to be consistent and mathematically explainable and a universe full of miracles does NOT qualify. Instead of googling if you actually read philosophy just a little you will maybe understand what falls under the category of rational. What if I make some calculations but it happens to be one of the miracles that I calculated? Rejecting something so simple and obvious can be only explained by the fact that your religion is not enough for you as a religion, you want it to be something else too, you even want it to be your doctor, what more can I say, go prayer-healing.
Quote:
Maybe you should read it. Saying that the assumptions can't be denied without referencing the assumptions is not proving the assumptions to be true. Those statements are assumed to be true and are unprovable.
No, it means they are not even to be proved or not because it's impossible to claim otherwise with making sense, since they are intrinsically self-evident as in black is black. So revelations of religion and axioms of philosophy are different things in nature according to your link too. I know you wish that everything else is as castle in the air as your faith but sorry to disappoint, they are not.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 09:30 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 09:31, 21 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
I think if you're going to be strictly correct - since there is no evidence to support either conclusion (and can't be, frankly) - then the only truly rational position is that neither conclusion (there is a God, there isn't a God) can be called proven beyond doubt - certainly not based on empirical data.
I completely agree. However, there are other points which are almost always ignored in a discussion like this one. The Christian God, as well as any other deity, is a local phenomenon. From a cultural perspective, it has zero rights to claim absolutism or even existence beyond certain geographical areas. I think this point has been mentioned many times so far and has always been ignored by the proponents of the Christianity, simply because they can't say anything about it and still claim that they have even the most basic knowledge about the human civilization. There are cultures which have no concept of "God" as the people in the West understand it (China - and no, not only modern age China). There are cultures with multiple gods (the various Indian gods for instance). The are non-theistic religions (Buddhism is the most famous example). And so on. Taking all that into account, you have the same scientific right to claim that the Christin God exists as to claim that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva exist, that Ahurza Mazda and Angra Mainyu exist, that a supreme force without any personal qualities exists or that no god exists. All of these may turn to be true - because strictly speaking you can not disprove them at this point - but you can not really claim that any of them is more true than the rest and remain scientific. In that sense, a Christian claiming that only his God exists or can exist is not making a scientific claim. That's a wishful thinking at best, not science.
The problem is, in my opinion, that the Westerner still hasn't quite understood that his culture is neither the only one, nor the superior one - that's a long-lasting legacy or the colonial times. Frankly, nowadays this issue seems to be most explicit in the US - Europe has mostly left such illusions in the past (although not completely and it's still possible to return back to them as some reactionary response to a social issue in a manner similar to the national socialism). That's a direct result of the political and economic power of certain Western countries which the mind of the commoner can easily and incorrectly translate as "greater material power = greater culture" while the two may be totally unrelated in many aspects. In the age of the global communications and free access to information however, one can not excuse his/her ignorance about the world with lack of access to resources which may convince him that there's a whole big world outside his own dogmas-enslaved village. Not in the developed countries at least.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 10:34 AM |
|
|
I do not troll, I only post something when I think it is appropriate. As you can see I've stopped talking to you and Seraphim when I saw we were not going anywhere.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 10:48 AM |
|
|
|
That would be the natural result if you dodge answers.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 02:08 PM |
|
|
Call it what you will, but I'm not trolling, at least not intentionally 
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2013 08:51 PM |
|
|
So here's a question for members of the Christian religion:
How can a Christian be in favor of the death penalty?
Explanation:
This may be a bit surprising, but the reason why I ask is the following:
Christian belief says, that all humans can repent their sins. If a human who has deadly sinned, really repents he will be saved (from hell) by Jesus.
Now, repenting isn't an easy job, because it must be HONEST - it needs something like a ... revelation - a deep INSIGHT that you erred which will lead to a sinner being REALLY sorry, REALLY repenting - and being saved.
Now, death penalty is willingly and deliberately ending all chances for a delinquent to repent HONESTLY (no lip service), deciding the matter.
In short, Christians executing delinquents make sure they go to hell, since they end every chance for them to still repent.
If I was a Christian - which I'm not, but if I was - I would have a massive problem with that, because I wouldn't want to decide something like that.
So what about that?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 22, 2013 09:55 PM |
|
|
Vengeance is mine, says the LORD, I will repay.
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
A Christian cannot be in favor of killing, period. If such persons exist, which they do, they are no better than the Pharisees. Whatever my sins may be, I have not and will not wish death upon anyone.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted June 22, 2013 10:37 PM |
|
|
Nikola Vaptzarov,one of the bulgarian poets and writers have written one song specificaly regarding this issue.
The name in english will be "Song for the human".
There he writes about a man who kills his father for money,but is caught and given the death penalty.
In prison he meets with people and changes himself from monster to human.And he sings when taken to death.
Sometimes only death is appropriate for a crime with enormous cruelty(like killing another human).God will know if the human really repents,so He will meet him differently according with the contact He has with the individual.
Because we Christians believe that death is more a point for another journey,nor the end of life as an ultimate frontier.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2013 10:46 PM |
|
|
Well, that's why the inquisition always wanted their "delinquents" to admit to their crimes, confess and repent before they killed them.
Of course this is the ideal scenario: evil sin -> getting caught -> repent -> death.
But what if the sinner does NOT repent immediately?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
