|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 03, 2013 10:17 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:24, 03 May 2013.
|
Quote:
And of course
@ Elodin
You have a belief - and that belief is that there is a very specific god that did a couple of things - you beelieve that's the truth of it.
I have a belief. You have a belief. I am rational in mine. You are rabid and very evangelical in yours.
Quote:
Now, when it comes to evoltion theory, your point is, that god easily may have made it LOOK like it, so that it simpl,y makes scientific sense.
I've never denied evolution. I deny that evolution is completely random and I say it is false for anyone to say it has been proved that evolution is completely random.
Do you clam you can in fact prove evolution is completely random? If so present your evidence.
Quote:
Worse, even if you could prove that there cannot be a being with such characteristics - even *I* have no problem saying, so what, I'd be bored as hell knowing everything, what about the power of BEING SURPRISED, so even IF quantum theory would determine that omniscience isn't possible in our reality, you'd still be able to say that god did that on purpose, because otherwise a lot of things don't make sense.
You are lying if you say you know what I'd say. But the question is moot sense there are no instruments that can detect the God who is fully present at every point in the space time continuum and who exists outside of it as well.
Quote:
Except, for you it IS definite. You often enough said, that you KNOW the truth. That Jesus spoke to you. That you have experienced him. You say, that WE cannot know ANYTHING, except if you personally experience the "truth" like you did.
That's what you say - or would you deny it?
I deny ever saying that something is true because of a direct word from God that I received on the matter. Certainly every true Christian has had encounters with God on some level. Christianity is a relationship with God.
As Jesus said (loose paraphrase) "The mysteries of the kingdom of God are only for the children of the kingdom."
Quote:
And every time someone says something against that, your point is: "You cannot prove your point, but I KNOW my point is RIGHT."
What, that you can't prove God does not exist but that I know he does? Yeah, I have a relationship with God and you can't prove he does not exist.
Quote:
Would you deny that? Would you say, yes, there IS a possibility that there is no god. Or at least not my god?
I don't think so.
And THAT is, what we call Elodin style - you do not NEED proof to be certain of what you BELIEVE, and that's why you use the necessity to GET proof for alternative stances as ... a weapon.
I have evidence. Just not evidence you accept.
I shall refer to every statement that I think as a lie as JJ-eske or JJ style arguments from this day forward. The other atheists who have been slandering me and using my name in as an adjective to reflect negativity also will not be left out. I presume the witch hunt that is typical of me "holding up a mirror" will follow and I will get the blame as normal.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 10:35 PM |
|
|
|
You feel wronged by my post?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 11:11 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:29, 03 May 2013.
|
@JJ
Sorry, I misunderstood the question then, the sentence was a little weird or it's the language barrier.
I only see that happening if we are living in some sort of simulation, (like in your example) and in that situation there would be two possibilities:
1) That some form of super-natural power creates that simulation, but in that case, the evidence pointing out to the simulation couldn't be physical and we're on the level of mysticism which is not debatable anyway. Mysticism's like trying to paint with a transparent brush.
2) It is advanced technology. In that case the source can be tracked down to some form of material universe again, just a one that we don't know the rules of.
I don't think math is based on sight either. I'm just not sure an intelligent species evolved without sight will have a geometry similar to ours. I wouldn't call your example of the chess masters right on the spot,they are more like Beethoven still composing AFTER he's deaf. What if he was born deaf. (A born-blind person can be a chess player but in a non-positional universe chess can't evolve.) The problem with this stuff is all the examples we give will still be from our imagination which evolved in this universe, while an alternative multiverse will probably be beyond our imagination on many levels. No matter what we try we'll be stuck like Jules Verne who sent man to the moon with a CANNON.
Quote:
I have evidence. Just not evidence you accept.
Your personal experience is not classified as evidence. I'm sure you'll agree that all of the religions (and there are thousands) can't
be right at the same time. However, all of them has believers that claim they experienced their faith's truth. It is part of human psychology.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You feel wronged by my post?
You misrepresenting things I say? Yeah. And of course you've used the "Elodin style" thing before. In the below statment, for example, that is a lie about what I say.
Quote:
You can't go ahead and claim something Elodin-style, saying I'm right as long as you don't prove I'm wrong.
Your persistence in lying about me and your insistance on making an adjective out of my name to attatch it to negativity is why I said from now on when I believe something to be a lie I'll say the liar is arguing "JJ style" or that his statment is JJ-eske.
When you feel free to lie about me and make an adjective out of my name to associate me with negativity I'll certainly feel free to "adjective" your name and truthfully associate it with lies.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2013 11:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Sorry, I misunderstood the question then, the sentence was a little weird or it's the language barrier.
I only see that happening if we are living in some sort of simulation, (like in your example) and in that situation there would be two possibilities:
1) That some form of super-natural power creates that simulation, but in that case, the evidence pointing out to the simulation couldn't be physical and we're on the level of mysticism which is not debatable anyway. Mysticism's like trying to paint with a transparent brush.
2) It is advanced technology. In that case the source can be tracked down to some form of material universe again, just a one that we don't know the rules of.
I don't think math is based on sight either. I'm just not sure an intelligent species evolved without sight will have a geometry similar to ours. I wouldn't call your example of the chess masters right on the spot,they are more like Beethoven still composing AFTER he's deaf. What if he was born deaf. (A born-blind person can be a chess player but in a non-positional universe chess can't evolve.) The problem with this stuff is all the examples we give will still be from our imagination which evolved in this universe, while an alternative multiverse will probably be beyond our imagination on many levels. No matter what we try we'll be stuck like Jules Verne who sent man to the moon with a CANNON.
Quote:
I have evidence. Just not evidence you accept.
Your personal experience is not classified as evidence. I'm sure you'll agree that all of the religions (and there are thousands) can't
be right at the same time. However, all of them has believers that claim they experienced their faith's truth. It is part of human psychology.
But that's what I mean: I think, you don't have any room left for any possibility of an idealistic world - your idea of idealism is that way that you reject the whole idea.
Which is a problem, since there is no decision, so you shouldn't eb biassed: if there is no way for you the world can be idealistic, although proof is missing ...?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You feel wronged by my post?
You misrepresenting things I say? Yeah. And of course you've used the "Elodin style" thing before. In the below statment, for example, that is a lie about what I say.
Quote:
You can't go ahead and claim something Elodin-style, saying I'm right as long as you don't prove I'm wrong.
Your persistence in lying about me and your insistance on making an adjective out of my name to attatch it to negativity is why I said from now on when I believe something to be a lie I'll say the liar is arguing "JJ style" or that his statment is JJ-eske.
When you feel free to lie about me and make an adjective out of my name to associate me with negativity I'll certainly feel free to "adjective" your name and truthfully associate it with lies.
I'm actually really sorry that this is your opinion about things.
You SHOULD accept the possibility, though, that it's not a question of defining an adjective or declaring something x-style, but people accpeting it, and it would seem that people may seem to have an idea what arguing Elodin-style is, while they MIGHT find, that arguing JJ-style is actually a cool thing, instead of the mark of lying.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 12:55 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:58, 04 May 2013.
|
I had a feeling even mentioning the word "evolution" was a bad idea. And it's ironic, in a way, because Elodin took my meaning the wrong way, thinking I meant to imply that scientists would say that evolution is random (because it's not, and nobody who understands it would ever claim otherwise).
But anyway, it was a passing example and I didn't intend for the thread to careen off in this direction. This thread is not about evolution and it's not about religion. So if you want to discuss evolution or religion, please find an appropriate thread for it.
Please return to the topic if the thread. And just as a warning I may clean the thread in a little while of the usual Elodin-is-Elodin-isn't stuff, so don't be surprised if the thread length decreases.
____________
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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 01:37 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:38, 04 May 2013.
|
Quote:
But that's what I mean: I think, you don't have any room left for any possibility of an idealistic world - your idea of idealism is that way that you reject the whole idea.
Which is a problem, since there is no decision, so you shouldn't eb biassed: if there is no way for you the world can be idealistic, although proof is missing ...?
First of all, I didn't say it was impossible, I said the only way to assume it would be mysticism which is just another way of saying "how can we really really know." I think that approach is pointless. Besides we always have Occham's Razor and if the options are actual real world and idealistic simulation conspiracy, I'd go for actual real world. I'm guessing in real life, you do that too.
@Corribus:
I was going to object to your choice of the word random but than I figured since you are a scientist you used the word as in "not designed, not predetermined", not as in "without any pattern or dynamics." Of course evolution is not random in the second sense, it involves dynamics like natural and sexual selection. I don't think evolution is a totally irrelevant subject when the discussion also involves where did our mind come from and what exactly is it. I too was very happy that the thread didn't turn into one of those religious debates, but if someone brings in God, I don't think it is justified to say "go somewhere else" because idealism contains the concept of God.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 04:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You SHOULD accept the possibility, though, that it's not a question of defining an adjective or declaring something x-style, but people accpeting it, and it would seem that people may seem to have an idea what arguing Elodin-style is, while they MIGHT find, that arguing JJ-style is actually a cool thing, instead of the mark of lying.
No, it is not the case of "people accepting it" as being descriptive of me. It is the case of several atheists who have proved they do not find lying to be morally wrong and who persistently lie about me and insult me on a continual basis who act like a pack of raving wolves out for a kill. People I characterize as "anti-theist." Most atheists are of course not anti-theists and most, like most people of all faiths, do find lying about someone morally repugnant.
Which is, I think, connected to the topic of this thread. Materialism vs idealism. If existence in fact were solely materialistic then in fact no action would be morally wrong in an objective sense. Any action would simply be an action. Not morally right. Not morally wrong. Not good. Not evil. Just an action like anything else one could do.
Did you risk your life to help someone in a burning building? Ok, fine, but in a purely materialistic world that action is no more moral than setting the building on fire and trying to prevent people from escaping it.
Fortunately the majority of atheists are not consistent in their belief in materialism when it comes to morals and recognize that there are in fact things that are objectively moral and objectively immoral. That is because a sense of right and wrong are a part of man's nature, as the Bible describes (written on the "tables" of person's heart.) But that sense can be ignored and hardened unfortunately.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 05:03 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:04, 04 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Which is, I think, connected to the topic of this thread. Materialism vs idealism. If existence in fact were solely materialistic then in fact no action would be morally wrong in an objective sense. Any action would simply be an action. Not morally right. Not morally wrong. Not good. Not evil. Just an action like anything else one could do.
Did you risk your life to help someone in a burning building? Ok, fine, but in a purely materialistic world that action is no more moral than setting the building on fire and trying to prevent people from escaping it.
Fortunately the majority of atheists are not consistent in their belief in materialism when it comes to morals and recognize that there are in fact things that are objectively moral and objectively immoral. That is because a sense of right and wrong are a part of man's nature, as the Bible describes (written on the "tables" of person's heart.) But that sense can be ignored and hardened unfortunately
Moral values (in a much more diminished way) are observed in other higher mammals as well, a wonderful speech by Robert Sapolsky, a primatologist is linked in page 3 of Germany moving to ban bestiality thread, well, I'll just put it here too:
Robert Sapolsky
Moral values are a result of our intellect, they evolved over time, we are social species and how we treat others play an important role in our survival rate too. There is nothing in this that makes moral values less important or less valuable. They don't have to be eternal and omnipresent and they are not like that at all anyway. I'm sure, back in 1850, there were many "good ol' Christians" in your homeland who also supported slavery, not because they were corrupted, not because they were monsters, simply because the moral standards of that particular time and place was different. It was like that in many places around the world, it was like that in Saudi Arabia until 1965. There are no moral values that are totally independent of cultural and conditional background, except things like not killing the social members of our own commune which dates back to our early times as high mammals in packs. Wolves don't kill and eat each other too.
To sum it up, having a species with abstract values are both explained by positive sciences such as evolutionary biology, neurology and by social sciences such as anthropology, behavioral psychology, sociology.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 05:52 AM |
|
|
I think the best balance is between the two. There are some good points from the philosophy of idealism and from the philosophy of materialism. At least that's my idea.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 08:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You are making your conclusions up. To name just an example: "the mind couldn't be dealing with something that it can't comprehend." That is evidently and empirically wrong on all levels.
Because? You're kind if missing the point of the topic if you expect somebody to take your position seriously without arguments. The above response is not any better than Elodin's "you lie".
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 09:22 AM |
|
|
Dude, isn't the mind dealing with stuff it can't comprehend ALL THE TIME? That's a very interesting field of research and another object of debate. Language defines and even creates stuff we don't actually understand, but since they are semantically defind the mind can operate with them. It's basically as simple as the mathematical conceptss of "0" and infinite. Although they are somewhat incomprehensible, you can still work with them.
Same thing is true for other abstract stuff.
Or just take "god" - clearly an incomprtehensible thing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:02, 04 May 2013.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Think evolution. Bats function mainly because of their ULTRAsonic capabilities combined with the best known immune system. They are not intelligent, because they don't need to be to survive. If a species is to survive and develop intelligence there must be "survicvl abilities", and if one of those is "intelligence" they MUST have a useful way of collecting information based on electromagnetiv waves - or develop the means to artificially collect them.
When you say this, aren't you actually admitting that even something as idealistic as math emerged because of materialistic conditions?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 03:37 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 15:40, 04 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Dude, isn't the mind dealing with stuff it can't comprehend ALL THE TIME? That's a very interesting field of research and another object of debate. Language defines and even creates stuff we don't actually understand, but since they are semantically defind the mind can operate with them. It's basically as simple as the mathematical conceptss of "0" and infinite. Although they are somewhat incomprehensible, you can still work with them.
Same thing is true for other abstract stuff.
Or just take "god" - clearly an incomprtehensible thing.
I'm talking about comprehension in a broad sense, the ability to process information in a "useful" way (don't bite the word, please), to extract some meaning. Zero and infinity might be a big mathematical curiosity but they are ultimately derived from the quantifiability of something. I already asked you - do you think that it will be possible to come up with a mathematical idea if you don't receive and have never received any information from the outside world (including your own body)?
As for the language - that's another huge topic. Language is a medium in all of its forms - it does not originate information, it only delivers it and relays it between the entities. As with every medium, it can intrude on the original information and twist if it has some kind of transmission restrictions. Like the resistivity of the conductors under certain conditions lead to loss of electrical energy between two points. So you can have, say, 10 people who think about "god" but ultimately each of them will imagine something different even if they talk to each other all the time, using the same language, and the things that will be imagined (individually) will be related to the existing world. Nobody will imagine something truly alien to this world because nobody has any information from outside this world.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 03:54 PM |
|
|
I asked you to keep it on topic. You didn't. Now I delete posts.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, isn't the mind dealing with stuff it can't comprehend ALL THE TIME? That's a very interesting field of research and another object of debate. Language defines and even creates stuff we don't actually understand, but since they are semantically defind the mind can operate with them. It's basically as simple as the mathematical conceptss of "0" and infinite. Although they are somewhat incomprehensible, you can still work with them.
Same thing is true for other abstract stuff.
Or just take "god" - clearly an incomprtehensible thing.
I'm talking about comprehension in a broad sense, the ability to process information in a "useful" way (don't bite the word, please), to extract some meaning. Zero and infinity might be a big mathematical curiosity but they are ultimately derived from the quantifiability of something. I already asked you - do you think that it will be possible to come up with a mathematical idea if you don't receive and have never received any information from the outside world (including your own body)?
As for the language - that's another huge topic. Language is a medium in all of its forms - it does not originate information, it only delivers it and relays it between the entities. As with every medium, it can intrude on the original information and twist if it has some kind of transmission restrictions. Like the resistivity of the conductors under certain conditions lead to loss of electrical energy between two points. So you can have, say, 10 people who think about "god" but ultimately each of them will imagine something different even if they talk to each other all the time, using the same language, and the things that will be imagined (individually) will be related to the existing world. Nobody will imagine something truly alien to this world because nobody has any information from outside this world.
Sorry, but since I think (and in fact are even sure) that you are both completely wrong in basically everything you say AND that this has no bearing on the actual questions at hand, I don't see any sense in discussing this further. Hints: example for one of many curious words: "afterlife". Infinity isn't quantifiable - except that there are differently big infinities in mathematics. "0" isn't quantifiable either because there is nothing there to quantify. Both is unimagiable, and therefore incomprehensible as well - except in a formal way which exists only because of mathematics. The universe is supposed to be 93 BILLION LIGHTYEARS in diameter. Can you comprehend that? I can't. It's ... large. INCOMPREHENSIBLY so.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 05:02 PM |
|
|
Oh boy,you really think highly of yourself, don't you.  Hint: I don't think discussing JJ style is cool. Anyway, that was not a valid or even relevant answer.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 05:06 PM |
|
|
|
You either keep pretending that you don't understand or you really don't. And you keep avoiding a pretty straight-forward question. I've rephrased my point several times already and I don't see the necessity to do it again. If you think that repeating to yourself that "we" are wrong about something actually proves your point, then there's indeed no room for further discussion.
|
|
VOKIALBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted May 04, 2013 05:24 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
