An Imperfect God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< your faith is supposed to scoff in the face of logic. >>>[/quote] There you go again. Faith, which is what every epistemology is, is the foundation of human logic. Yours, Cryogen,s and Kamui’s too. It’s only a question of what in. You have been designed in the derivative image of a super-logical God.
[/quote]

See, here is my problem Tiribulus: you begin with a point you’ve argued well in the past–that epistemology is faith by definition; that the human experience is a quagmire of uncertainty and any sense of lucidity is illusory; that nobody can know or prove a single proposition beyond doubt. A logical consequence of this is that it is impossible to make a declarative statement with certainty: every single claim uttered by every single man and woman throughout history entire has either been preceded by an explicit or implicit “I believe,” or it has been a lie.

…and then you make a declarative statement: “you have been designed in the derivative image of a super-logical God.”

My question is this: is there an implicit “I believe” in there somewhere?

Edit: consider this my attempt at rekindling our argument; I’ve tried to go back to the probability question but I find it too bogged down in semantics and peripheral minutiae to be worthy of our devoting our energies to it.

162

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There are other non Christians here who disagree with me about everything, but will also confirm that you have no idea what I’m talkin about.
[/quote]

He’s correct Cryogen. While I’m a fan of Hitchens myself, his work is certainly not the philosophically impregnable fortress you make it out to be. You speak of logic and reason but your position of hard atheism (The form of Atheism asserts that no deities exist.) is just as dogmatic as the theist’s claim that their respective holy text is divinely revealed knowledge. You both claim to know something with certainty and see the world in black and white, when in reality it is various shades of grey. If you applied the same skepticism towards your own militant atheism you logically wouldn’t be able to maintain such a hard-line stance without being intellectually inconsistent.

Everyone on this earth lives their lives with one degree of faith or another. I assumed when I went to bed last night that the sun would rise in the morning. Can I say with certainty that it will do the same tomorrow? No, but I’ll live my life as if it will. Even something as empirical as science still relies upon basic assumptions. This is philosophy of science 101.

  1. There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
  2. Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
  3. There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

As much as I disagree with Tiribulus at time, Epistemology, the nature and scope of knowledge, is indeed the key to EVERYTHING. Virtually every single academic discipline rests upon this single branch of the philosophical tree.

I stumbled into PWI with the same brash mindset that you currently display. “These idiots, how could they believe these bronze age mythologies?” I was disrespectful, arrogant, and frankly crossed the line a few times. There is nothing to be gained intellectually from taking such a hard line stance. Stick around, ask questions, listen, research, and don’t come into any discussion without being willing to fully consider the arguments of others. I’ve learned more from the Christians on this board then the two philosophy classes I took in my undergraduate career.

163

[quote]smh23 wrote: See, here is my problem Tiribulus: you begin with a point you’ve argued well in the past–that epistemology is faith by definition; that the human experience is a quagmire of uncertainty and any sense of lucidity is illusory; >>>[/quote] My friend I have argued no such thing. Please see below. [quote]smh23 wrote:<<< it is impossible to make a declarative statement with certainty: >>>[/quote] No sir. It is impossible to AVOID making constant declarative statements AND making incessant life decisions with UTTER certainty even if a concentrated conscious effort were made to do so. That was Groo’s Halleluiah worthy bullseye declaration. Reread my post please. That is the “insanity” of unbelief. Skeptics loudly proclaim universal comprehensive uncertainty with their mouths on one hand while LIVING as if their entire existence were certain on the other. Guess what? IT IS certain. Sinners are simply not equipped in their corruption in sin to know or believe how or why. They are dead to their God even though His very fingerprint and signature is on every particle of their reality. The problem is THEIR blindness. Not HIS lack of visibility. [quote]smh23 wrote:<<< …and then you make a declarative statement: “you have been designed in the derivative image of a super-logical God.” My question is this: is there an implicit “I believe” in there somewhere? >>>[/quote] From your standpoint, of course there is. From my standpoint of new life provided by the very God who is singularly possessed of true objective certainty, absolutely not. My belief or not is as is irrelevant as yours to the truth of this situation. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my being smarter or better than you in any way either. I was also a dead man, spiritually, intellectually and morally decomposing in my own sin. He sovereignly resurrected me in and by Himself. Where once I was blind in sinful autonomous uncertainly now I see HIS glory absolutely EVERYwhere and in EVERYthing. I can’t help it. He’s staring you right in the face, but you’ll believe literally anything before surrendering to Him. Same as me without His life giving grace and mercy. [quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Edit: consider this my attempt at rekindling our argument; I’ve tried to go back to the probability question but I find it too bogged down in semantics and peripheral minutiae to be worthy of our devoting our energies to it.[/quote] Poppycock. You’re a smart guy. You have given yourself headaches (figuratively) workin that line of thought every way possible. It’s ok to just say you don’t have an answer. I will not gloat and belittle you. Actually I would rather respect that.

164

1749×623 283 KB

[quote]Legionary wrote:<<< As much as I disagree with Tiribulus at time, Epistemology, the nature and scope of knowledge, is indeed the key to EVERYTHING. Virtually every single academic discipline rests upon this single branch of the philosophical tree. >>>[/quote]My hat is off sir. This is precisely correct. I am also humbled and gratified at whatever of your accolades may have been pointed at me. Here is the graphic I made for DrSkeptix a while back. I gotta go work legs.

165

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Absolute nonsense. Faith is present only when logic is absent.We have been “designed”, and it truly is an atrocious word to use here, by an uncaring selection process that killed many who were adapted and all who were not against a certain selection pressure.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You cannot prevent it no matter how hard you try and boy do you ever. This is called “sin”. Adam and Eve tried it first in the garden. It was the most monumentally disastrous failure of all time. Man is neither allowed nor capable of making his own decisions. He functions correctly only when in self conscious voluntary submission to the God who is alone qualified and authorized to instruct him in RIGHTeousness.
[/quote] Bullshit. There is no sin. Again, stop thinking that everyone is as mentally ill as yourself.

[quote]
What’s amusing is that I haven’t found one single unbeliever, ever, who can tell me how and why 2+2=4, but they have no problem advancing entire schemes of alleged science as if they actually have any reason whatsoever in and by their sinful autonomous selves for believing ANYTHING. Which the honest ones simply affirm. They tell me straight up: “well we can’t REALLY KNOW anything”.
[\quote]
We know it, because every time it is tested, the outcome is the same. 2+2=4 quite self evidently. You cannot call things alleged science, because you’re using the outcome of that science to post your inane drivel. 2+2=4 quite simply because regardless of what you call the groups, the result is always the same. It’s nomenclature is arbitrary, and despite your insistence to take a simple concept and argue that your imaginary friend did it all, the operation remains the same. The evidence that we have, all supports this outcome.

By your very nature, in stating that you know things absolutely, and that you have absolute certainty about it delivered unto you by your farcical imaginary friend, you only make yourself appear progressively more stupid each time you make the claim.

You’ll have to excuse me whilst i recover from almost wetting my pants in laughter at how stupidly pathetic religious people are. Feel free to continue to make up fairy tales about your imaginary friend and how tough he is for yourself. You stick with the creation myths that were cumbersome, wrong and outdated in the stone age. The rest of the world will continue to laugh at you, though to be honest, we should probably refer you to a psychiatrist for some serious medication. Thorazine should go at least some way towards mitigating the psychosis you’re exhibiting.

We can actually prove things, and we’ve done a pretty damn good job of it. But the beauty of it all, the most fundamentally delightful thing is that if the observed evidence suggests that a theory might need some rectification, or an update to contain the fullest body of evidence related to that question, I can change my position to reflect this.

You, regardless of how much evidence shows that your claim is absolutely idiotic, you will continue to claim that you’re absolutely correct until you’re out of breath, all whilst pointing to a pathetically contradictory book which makes claims that not even the majority of your christian bretheren take seriously.

166

[quote]Karado wrote:
'Got a clever poster for the Muslims there too Aussie, or are you too scared
to post one?
[/quote]

Why would anyone be scared?

Their nonsense creation myth is plagiarised from the idiotic book of the Jews, and followed with some more plagiarism of the stupid book of the christians.

They are in exactly the same boat as all religious people, that they cannot support their position.

167

556×800 187 KB

And another one.

168

a few things :

  • 2+2=4 is not an empirical proposition.
    And for this reason, it can’t be tested, at all. No experience, no result, no evidence.

Self-evidence, maybe. But self-evidence requires, at the very least, that we already have acknowledged a good reason to trust our “simple concepts”.

You offered no such reason for now.
Tirib did. Even if you don’t like his answer.

  • Tirib is indeed “using the outcome of science” to post what you consider an inane drivel.
    but
    -he know it.
    -He know that it’s unavoidable.
    -And more importantly, he know why it is unavoidable.

  • YOU are using the “income of belief” (so to speak) to post your own inane drivel.
    But unlike Tirib
    -you don’t realize it.
    -you don’t know that it’s unavoidable. And you will keep pretending it’s not.

  • I’m not sure that myths are meant and made to be right or wrong.
    They do not pretend to be science, and should not be judged as such.
    They have, among other things, a symbolic or metaphoric meaning.

Even if Thor is an imaginary character, he is the symbol of something real enough : the fury of the sky.
By analogy, the Christian God would be the symbol of the Absolute. Something that is real enough too.

169

[quote]kamui wrote:

a few things :

  • 2+2=4 is not an empirical proposition.
    And for this reason, it can’t be tested, at all. No experience, no result, no evidence.

Self-evidence, maybe. But self-evidence requires, at the very least, that we already have acknowledged a good reason to trust our “simple concepts”.

You offered no such reason for now.
Tirib did. Even if you don’t like his answer.

  • Tirib is indeed “using the outcome of science” to post what you consider an inane drivel.
    but
    -he know it.
    -He know that it’s unavoidable.
    -And more importantly, he know why it is unavoidable.

  • YOU are using the “income of belief” (so to speak) to post your own inane drivel.
    But unlike Tirib
    -you don’t realize it.
    -you don’t know that it’s unavoidable. And you will keep pretending it’s not.

  • I’m not sure that myths are meant and made to be right or wrong.
    They do not pretend to be science, and should be judged as such.
    They have, among other things, a symbolic or metaphoric meaning.

Even if Thor is an imaginary character, he is the symbol of something real enough : the fury of the sky.
By analogy, the Christian God would be the symbol of the Absolute. Something that is real enough too.

[/quote]

You’re wrong.

The nomenclature aside, number is in and of itself certain. We can test it, you can use apples, bees, dogs, in an empirical fashion. You could even make a thought experiment of it, but thinking seems to be where most of you are getting lost, so it’s best to avoid things you clearly struggle with.

You guys are atheists in relation to Thor, and clearly to Allah, and the god of the jews, and Ra, and Odin and Baal. You think those ideas are stupid and wrong.

I however, simply extend the same logic one step further. IF you were capable of rational, individual thought, you’d see why this is the only workable answer.

170

[quote]
You’re wrong.

The nomenclature aside, number is in and of itself certain. We can test it, you can use apples, bees, dogs, in an empirical fashion. You could even make a thought experiment of it, but thinking seems to be where most of you are getting lost, so it’s best to avoid things you clearly struggle with.[/quote]

You can use all the apples, bees and dogs of the world, this won’t give you the actual experience of a number.
It will give you more and more experiences of bees, apples and dogs. But that’s all.

At best, someone can use bees, apples, dogs to show you how the concept of 2 can be used. And how we can play with the rule “2+2=4”.
This is not the same thing.

This rule is not arbitrary. But it’s not “empirically true” either.
Transcendantally true would be closer from the truth.

I already agreed that it is self evident in my previous post. i simply observed that you can’t explain why it is the case.
you just confirmed this.

And while we are here : you can’t have it both way.
Either
something can be “tested” and empircally proved, in which case it’s not self-evident. It’s evident by external evidence.
Or
something is self-evident, in which case it can’t (and doesn’t need to) be tested to be true.

It still need another kind of proof. At an epistemological level.
Or it is… horror… a fundationnal belief !

[quote]
You guys are atheists in relation to Thor, and clearly to Allah, and the god of the jews, and Ra, and Odin and Baal. You think those ideas are stupid and wrong[/quote]

You seem to have some reading problems.
I explicitly said that mythology was not stupid, and that the problem of its truth could very well be mostly a false problem.

[quote]
I however, simply extend the same logic one step further. IF you were capable of rational, individual thought, you’d see why this is the only workable answer. [/quote]

extending bad logic “one step further” usually end up with bad results.

And for the record, i’m an atheist too. I simply don’t think that “science works, so i’m right and you’re wrong” is a convincing argument.
it’s not an argument at all actually.

171

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
You’re wrong.

The nomenclature aside, number is in and of itself certain. We can test it, you can use apples, bees, dogs, in an empirical fashion. You could even make a thought experiment of it, but thinking seems to be where most of you are getting lost, so it’s best to avoid things you clearly struggle with.[/quote]

You can use all the apples, bees and dogs of the world, this won’t give you the actual experience of a number.
It will give you more and more experiences of bees, apples and dogs. But that’s all.

At best, someone can use bees, apples, dogs to show you how the concept of 2 can be used. And how we can play with the rule “2+2=4”.
This is not the same thing.

This rule is not arbitrary. But it’s not “empirically true” either.
Transcendantally true would be closer from the truth.

I already agreed that it is self evident in my previous post. i simply observed that you can’t explain why it is the case.
you just confirmed this.

[quote]
You guys are atheists in relation to Thor, and clearly to Allah, and the god of the jews, and Ra, and Odin and Baal. You think those ideas are stupid and wrong[/quote]

You seem to have some reading problems.
I explicitly said that mythology was not stupid, and that the problem of its truth could very well be mostly a false problem.

You’re wrong as far as the number problem is concerned. A number is not to be experienced, and as you quite rightly point out, the concept of 2 can be experienced. Given that so many of our ancestors accurately developed complex ideas of numerical representations of things, in different places using different words, the fact that in all cases their concepts meant the same thing reflects what we know about the concept of number. This is exactly what is meant by knowing 2+2=4. Any other twist which you want to try to place on the idea serves to confuse the matter, and is not a coherent or cogent argument.

The rule is indeed empirically testable. Because you can formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, and test it repeatedly. The evidence is apparent, even to a cursory attempt to consider it, and is therefore self-evident.

My argument is NOT that science works, everyone else is wrong.

My argument is that science works. Anyone who doesn’t use evidence to support their position is wrong.

172

[quote]
The rule is indeed empirically testable[/quote]

you can’t test a rule. By definition.
You can follow it or not. That’s all.

“Adding 2 bees to 2 bees” doesn’t “verify” 2+2=4.
When you “add 2 bees to 2 bees” you are just making an “authorized move” under the pre-existing and pre-conceived rule “2+2=4”.
If you ever get 5 bees, it doesn’t mean that you falsified the hypothesis and that you can now conclude that “2+2=4 is factually wrong”

It just means that you did an unauthorized move at some point. Or that you followed another rule.

173

[quote]
My argument is that science works. Anyone who doesn’t use evidence to support their position is wrong.[/quote]

The problem is that science doesn’t work without an epistemology. And you can’t use evidence to support the most fundationnal epistemological positions.

In other words : Scientist reductionism is a self-defeated posture.

174

[quote]kamui wrote:

You are fundamentally, and undeniably wrong. You also clearly have a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

We consider our hypothesis that 2+2=4, and it is a hypothesis as far as science is concerned, then to test this we simply need to make it falsifiable. If 2+2=4 is incorrect, then when we perform the test x will not =4. The corollary also holds true.

The definition, or nomenclature of “rule” here is the problem. Similarly, your misunderstanding often causes problems when people consider the “laws” of science.

Theory in science means “hypothesis supported by all of the available evidence we have ever observed.”
A law of science implies the exact same thing, as does a rule.

By removing the term law or rule, we still have the same meaning with less confusion for the lowest common denominator.

Newton’s Law/theory/hypothesis of gravity and physics do not change depending on the nomenclature usedm it still means the same thing.

That you incorrectly define rule in this context is what causes your confusion.

175

Oh dear God in heaven save my man Kamui!!! I sit once again in gape jawed awe at how you n I walk hand in hand right into the very throne room of the most high God and then when I try to introduce you, you yank your hand free and run off building an utterly brilliant yet utterly wrong foundational framework of your own to escape Him. He is right in front of you and you cannot see Him. My forehead is bloody right now from beating it on my keyboard. I wanna hug you and shake you at the same time LOL! I’ll say again for the benefit of these new guys. My fine French friend here Kamui is THE one and only non Christian I have EVER heard of who asks absolutely ALL the right questions and thereby does fully understand WHERE the stakes are intellectually and why.

I have some stuff I gotta do.

176

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

You are fundamentally, and undeniably wrong. You also clearly have a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

We consider our hypothesis that 2+2=4, and it is a hypothesis as far as science is concerned, then to test this we simply need to make it falsifiable. If 2+2=4 is incorrect, then when we perform the test x will not =4. The corollary also holds true.

The definition, or nomenclature of “rule” here is the problem. Similarly, your misunderstanding often causes problems when people consider the “laws” of science.

Theory in science means “hypothesis supported by all of the available evidence we have ever observed.”
A law of science implies the exact same thing, as does a rule.

By removing the term law or rule, we still have the same meaning with less confusion for the lowest common denominator.

Newton’s Law/theory/hypothesis of gravity and physics do not change depending on the nomenclature usedm it still means the same thing.

That you incorrectly define rule in this context is what causes your confusion.[/quote]

I’d like to take the time out to go over your points one by one, but unfortunately time is not on my side these days so I’ll give you some authors you can read up on so you can better understand what science is and isn’t. I highly recommend you do some reading on their works. They’re very insightful.

Karl Popper
Philip Kitcher
David Hume
Quine
Thomas Kuhn

My personal favorites are Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

177

Funny things:
If I created something, and I loved it, I’d want it to question me.
People who love me tend to question me. People who don’t, tend to let my bullshit go.
Most skeptics believe in logic (and most, by extension, math).
Most “Christians” have “faith” (ie, believe in God and/or Jesus)

You’re all on here arguing about good and bad, right and wrong, true and false, instead of going out and doing the things you know to be good.

178

[quote]Son_of_Man wrote:<<< If I created something, [/quote] you would be the very first human being in all of recorded history to do so. Please invite me over when you attempt this. If you succeed I will be instantly captivated by whatever you say next. Until then you are enslaved to all the same symptoms of finitude as the rest of us and hence will only be making ultimately meaningful statements in reference to something other than yourself.

For anybody who cares, here’s the deal between Kamui and I. He has arrived at a set of ultimate philosophical questions the answers to which he considered the keys to a consistent intellectual framework of logic he can live with. He has answered those questions in a way that he considers satisfactory to himself. Few others he has met, even professional philosophers, have in his view even asked the right questions to say nothing of building a consistent set of answers. This all happened for him looong before he and I met.

He DOES NOT like my Christianity. He respects the fact that I have asked and answered pretty much the same questions he has in an internally consistent manner. He likes ME. NOT my God, which I’d gladly see reversed, but would really love it if I could have both. I would almost go so far as to say that we have the same epistemology EXCEPT that he has in my view contrived, in his view arrived, at an alternative object for his faith that to him answers his very correct questions without being my God. On purpose without realizing it.(he’ll understand that)

For my part he is one of the very VERY few nonchristians in the now 25 years I’ve been thinking about such things, that I have learned ANYTHING from. Even though he’s significantly younger than I am. Our systems are THAT close and yet where the final definitions live, they are eternities apart. I also like him very much and enjoy our conversations immensely. Well, he is of course free to correct me anywhere I’m wrong here, but just thought I’d throw that out there like I say. In case anybody cares.

179

[quote]You are fundamentally, and undeniably wrong. You also clearly have a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

We consider our hypothesis that 2+2=4, and it is a hypothesis as far as science is concerned, then to test this we simply need to make it falsifiable. If 2+2=4 is incorrect, then when we perform the test x will not =4. The corollary also holds true.[/quote]

It would probably work like that if addition were a observable, empiric phenomenon.
But it’s not.

What you’re saying here is the equivalent of this :
"we consider our hypothesis that “the rook only move horizontally and vertically on a chess board”, and it is a hypothesis as far as science is concerned, then to test this we simply need to make it falsifiable. If “the rook only move horizontally and vertically on a chess board” is incorrect, theh when we perform the test our rook will have moved diagonally. The corollary also holds true.

If you move a rook diagonally on a chessboard, you don’t “falsify” the rules of chess. You violates them.

[quote]
The definition, or nomenclature of “rule” here is the problem. Similarly, your misunderstanding often causes problems when people consider the “laws” of science.

Theory in science means “hypothesis supported by all of the available evidence we have ever observed.”
A law of science implies the exact same thing, as does a rule.

By removing the term law or rule, we still have the same meaning with less confusion for the lowest common denominator.

Newton’s Law/theory/hypothesis of gravity and physics do not change depending on the nomenclature usedm it still means the same thing.

That you incorrectly define rule in this context is what causes your confusion.[/quote]

Again : gravity is a natural phenomenon. Newton’s law is a theoretical model we can use to analyze and explain it.

Addition is not a phenomenon. It doesn’t “happen” on its own.
It’s an operation. a specific kind of human action. And it has some rules, which define that the result of the operation 2+2 IS 4. No matter what.
If you fail to “find” 4, the only conclusion is that you failed to operate properly.
not that “the rule is false”.

180

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Son_of_Man wrote:<<< If I created something, [/quote] you would be the very first human being in all of recorded history to do so. Please invite me over when you attempt this. If you succeed I will be instantly captivated by whatever you say next. Until then you are enslaved to all the same symptoms of finitude as the rest of us and hence will only be making ultimately meaningful statements in reference to something other than yourself.

For anybody who cares, here’s the deal between Kamui and I. He has arrived at a set of ultimate philosophical questions the answers to which he considered the keys to a consistent intellectual framework of logic he can live with. He has answered those questions in a way that he considers satisfactory to himself. Few others he has met, even professional philosophers, have in his view even asked the right questions to say nothing of building a consistent set of answers. This all happened for him looong before he and I met.

He DOES NOT like my Christianity. He respects the fact that I have asked and answered pretty much the same questions he has in an internally consistent manner. He likes ME. NOT my God, which I’d gladly see reversed, but would really love it if I could have both. I would almost go so far as to say that we have the same epistemology EXCEPT that he has in my view contrived, in his view arrived, at an alternative object for his faith that to him answers his very correct questions without being my God. On purpose without realizing it.(he’ll understand that)

For my part he is one of the very VERY few nonchristians in the now 25 years I’ve been thinking about such things, that I have learned ANYTHING from. Even though he’s significantly younger than I am. Our systems are THAT close and yet where the final definitions live, they are eternities apart. I also like him very much and enjoy our conversations immensely. Well, he is of course free to correct me anywhere I’m wrong here, but just thought I’d throw that out there like I say. In case anybody cares.[/quote]

This why I admire him and his base philosophy so much. Much respect to you too Tirib.

Hey Kamui. Have you ever thought about making a thread about how you discovered your questions and answers? Sometimes the journey is just as interesting if not more so!