Can I pose another question to you?
Science works off the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.
The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
[/quote]
I agree with your statistical model in one sense. This is why I am generally a skeptic. I don’t assume that the limited scope of our understanding affords us anything like absolute knowledge. This is actually the most interesting thing to me about science… there will always be something new to learn.
[/quote]
You have a sampling level that affords you a confidence of 0. That is logically equivalent to no evidence. This is basic statistics.[/quote]
No. It is most definitely not Zero. It could be a really small number, but it is not Zero. Even in an infinite scale, positive integers are not all zero.
Furthermore, my confidence level in many of the axioms of science is considerably higher than my confidence in the necessity of a prime mover.
Scientific axioms are reached via observation and verification.
BTW - you’ve as mush as admitted here in your second to last paragraph that you think arguments from ignorance (a classic logical fallacy) are valid arguments… this explains quite a bit.
[/quote]
I observe everything known has a cause. Therefor I think the universe has one. The concept of a causeless anything is irrational and against observation.
And no there is no possible verification. This has been repeated again and again. See above.[/quote]
So, you are a determinist. There is a lot of logic to it… I have a hard time faulting you for it.
I’m not convinced either way, though, and it has to do with not having enough understanding of the issue. I do know that there are some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate, so I’m keeping my options open.
But claiming there is a god is distinct from claiming there is a specific god. No claim is made as the the specific nature of the cause/god/whatever. It acknowledges of itself all of those possibilities.
I mainly am only taking offense to the claim that a cause is somehow less rational and less thought out.[/quote]
You also take offense if i compare that belief to the great FSM?
Why?[/quote]
You can apply it all you want. FSM is equally valid to any other specific un-reasoned claim about god. It is not however equally valid to the general acknowledgment of a god. The church of the FSM makes claims about the nature of god, I do not.
While it is a counter argument to a religion, it is not a counter to what I’m discussing.[/quote]
The existence of a god can’t be proven. At best, it may be infered from how we perceive reality based on wishful thinking.
And thus we enter the realm of beliefs.
So how would you go about making a rational positive claim on the existence of a god?
[i realise you probably covered this already]
[/quote]
I personally see existence necessitating a god. We exist, therefore god. Or, we don’t exist, therefore I’m not wrong =0)
[/quote]
Can I pose another question to you?
Science works off the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.
The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
[/quote]
I agree with your statistical model in one sense. This is why I am generally a skeptic. I don’t assume that the limited scope of our understanding affords us anything like absolute knowledge. This is actually the most interesting thing to me about science… there will always be something new to learn.
[/quote]
You have a sampling level that affords you a confidence of 0. That is logically equivalent to no evidence. This is basic statistics.[/quote]
No. It is most definitely not Zero. It could be a really small number, but it is not Zero. Even in an infinite scale, positive integers are not all zero.
Furthermore, my confidence level in many of the axioms of science is considerably higher than my confidence in the necessity of a prime mover. [/quote]
But claiming there is a god is distinct from claiming there is a specific god. No claim is made as the the specific nature of the cause/god/whatever. It acknowledges of itself all of those possibilities.
I mainly am only taking offense to the claim that a cause is somehow less rational and less thought out.[/quote]
You also take offense if i compare that belief to the great FSM?
Why?[/quote]
You can apply it all you want. FSM is equally valid to any other specific un-reasoned claim about god. It is not however equally valid to the general acknowledgment of a god. The church of the FSM makes claims about the nature of god, I do not.
While it is a counter argument to a religion, it is not a counter to what I’m discussing.[/quote]
The existence of a god can’t be proven. At best, it may be infered from how we perceive reality based on wishful thinking.
And thus we enter the realm of beliefs.
So how would you go about making a rational positive claim on the existence of a god?
[i realise you probably covered this already]
[/quote]
I personally see existence necessitating a god. We exist, therefore god. Or, we don’t exist, therefore I’m not wrong =0)
[/quote]
What about existence necessitates a god?
[/quote]
By god I really only mean a cause. The physical nature of the universe cannot be responsible for the fact that things exist. I therefore think that there must be a cause external to the universe.
But claiming there is a god is distinct from claiming there is a specific god. No claim is made as the the specific nature of the cause/god/whatever. It acknowledges of itself all of those possibilities.
I mainly am only taking offense to the claim that a cause is somehow less rational and less thought out.[/quote]
You also take offense if i compare that belief to the great FSM?
Why?[/quote]
You can apply it all you want. FSM is equally valid to any other specific un-reasoned claim about god. It is not however equally valid to the general acknowledgment of a god. The church of the FSM makes claims about the nature of god, I do not.
While it is a counter argument to a religion, it is not a counter to what I’m discussing.[/quote]
The existence of a god can’t be proven. At best, it may be infered from how we perceive reality based on wishful thinking.
And thus we enter the realm of beliefs.
So how would you go about making a rational positive claim on the existence of a god?
[i realise you probably covered this already]
[/quote]
I personally see existence necessitating a god. We exist, therefore god. Or, we don’t exist, therefore I’m not wrong =0)
[/quote]
What about existence necessitates a god?
[/quote]
By god I really only mean a cause. The physical nature of the universe cannot be responsible for the fact that things exist. I therefore think that there must be a cause external to the universe.[/quote]
“god” and “a cause” are two very different things.
Like I said, I get it. You’re into determinism.
Although, I do find it odd that you use observed determinism in the universe to necessitate an external cause. Think this through… If you use the universe to explain causation, then the cause that is external to the universe must adhere to the same rules. It, too needs a cause. Unless you take a leap of logic in assuming that this external cause is somehow transcendent of the causal chain… for which you have no evidence other than a desire to have an answer.
I’m surprised that more religious people aren’t non-determinists.
Can I pose another question to you?
Science works off the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.
The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
[/quote]
I agree with your statistical model in one sense. This is why I am generally a skeptic. I don’t assume that the limited scope of our understanding affords us anything like absolute knowledge. This is actually the most interesting thing to me about science… there will always be something new to learn.
[/quote]
You have a sampling level that affords you a confidence of 0. That is logically equivalent to no evidence. This is basic statistics.[/quote]
No. It is most definitely not Zero. It could be a really small number, but it is not Zero. Even in an infinite scale, positive integers are not all zero.
Furthermore, my confidence level in many of the axioms of science is considerably higher than my confidence in the necessity of a prime mover. [/quote]
Show me the math.[/quote]
Sorry. That’s the best that I can do… a summation of what I understand. I’m not a mathematician.
“god” and “a cause” are two very different things.
[/quote]
depends on what you mean by each. A cause is god to a deist.
I’m not a determinist, at least not really. I don’t believe in the possibility of scientific determination. There is still chance involved in the universe. Like playing craps. The dice allow room for possible free will because they aren’t predictable. BUT the dice coming up on a certain number is still an exact cause for the events that happen. I think there is room for both causation and free will, at least to an extent.
And I’m not using the universe. I using the universes lack of ability to explain itself. and by that logic the cause is NOT bound by the rules of the universe.
And I can’t say weather an initial cause needs a cause because it is specifically not part of this universe.
I just know that an atom can’t exist of it’s own accord.
“god” and “a cause” are two very different things.
[/quote]
depends on what you mean by each. A cause is god to a deist.
I’m not a determinist, at least not really. I don’t believe in the possibility of scientific determination. There is still chance involved in the universe. Like playing craps. The dice allow room for possible free will because they aren’t predictable. BUT the dice coming up on a certain number is still an exact cause for the events that happen. I think there is room for both causation and free will, at least to an extent.
And I’m not using the universe. I using the universes lack of ability to explain itself. and by that logic the cause is NOT bound by the rules of the universe.
And I can’t say weather an initial cause needs a cause because it is specifically not part of this universe.
I just know that an atom can’t exist of it’s own accord.[/quote]
Wasn’t it you who earlier in this thread argued that unpredictability and non-determinism are not the same thing?
Also, you certainly did use the universe to come to the conclusion that all things must have a cause. This is my point. You draw the cause and effect relationship from observation of the physical universe. If not… then, from where do you draw the need for cause and effect?
“god” and “a cause” are two very different things.
[/quote]
depends on what you mean by each. A cause is god to a deist.
I’m not a determinist, at least not really. I don’t believe in the possibility of scientific determination. There is still chance involved in the universe. Like playing craps. The dice allow room for possible free will because they aren’t predictable. BUT the dice coming up on a certain number is still an exact cause for the events that happen. I think there is room for both causation and free will, at least to an extent.
And I’m not using the universe. I using the universes lack of ability to explain itself. and by that logic the cause is NOT bound by the rules of the universe.
And I can’t say weather an initial cause needs a cause because it is specifically not part of this universe.
I just know that an atom can’t exist of it’s own accord.[/quote]
Wasn’t it you who earlier in this thread argued that unpredictability and non-determinism are not the same thing?
Also, you certainly did use the universe to come to the conclusion that all things must have a cause. This is my point. You draw the cause and effect relationship from observation of the physical universe. If not… then, from where do you draw the need for cause and effect?[/quote]
LOL. But predictability and determinism (the theory) really are. There is wiggle room in the future state of physical system. I’m not a determinist. But I also never claimed to be a non-determinist because I believe everything has a cause. I believe everything has a cause but that systems are NOT necessarily pre-determined.
I see causality and determination as 2 slightly different things.
Damn it! I had this all written out and then my computer friggin’ crashed! I’ll try again, but it would be as good probably
No, shaking hands with you would not prove you exist. If you go to your home town mental institution, you are likely to find at least one person who interacts with people or things we don’t think or see existing. We think he’s crazy, but he may really see things we don’t. For instance, he can take drugs that will stop him from seeing things, or we can take drugs that cause us to see things. Senses can be fooled, they can be wrong in the first place. When I look at the color red and you look at the color red, we both call it ‘red’ but if I jumped into your head and saw it as you saw it, it may look magenta, or baby-shit brown to me through your eyes. If one person sees a ghost and the 10 other people with him did not, the consensus would be there is no ghost. Now if ten people see a ghost and one does not, then does that ghost exist in this case?
Bottom line, much of what we sense is validated by consensus. Consensus can be evidence, but does not prove anything other than a bunch of people agree that they sense the same thing. Further, you don’t need to be nuts or drugged to fool your senses. Stare at a point on a wall for over 60 seconds and see what you brain starts to do to it. We can also engage in sensory depravation, it’s a cruel treatment, but if you deprive someone of sensory information for over 24 hours, their brain makes a reality for them.
Senses provide information, but the information is not complete and may or may not be accurate.[/quote]
You’re talking about mental states here, but you asked if i could prove my body exists. It may not be much to look at, but it’s a physical entity nonetheless. Because i don’t separate my mind from my body, by proving my body exists i prove i exist.
[/quote]
Your rejection of duelism is not in question here. It’s what you can prove. What you cannot prove is that you exist. You cannot prove you’re not an illusion to my mind a hallucination. Hell, I cannot prove I am not dreamed up by something else. It could all be one giant illusion. You believe you are a physical entity, I believe you are to, but you cannot prove that anything exits beyond your perceptions. I think I made you up, prove me wrongâ?¦.
Every thing is a mental state, if your not dead, your brain is in a state. Your state is your paradigm for perception. You perception is your reality, and you cannot be sure your reality is more real than anybody else. Again, we verify by consensusâ?¦
Which is fine, but it doesn’t solve the problem. Take eye-witness accounts for instance, many, seemingly rational people can witness the same event and have a very different account of what happened. It happens all the time, so much so that the importance of eye-witness accounts have been reduced in the eye’s of the American judicial system. That means, that different people sense things differently. Their perception is reality to them, if two people agree on a perception it helps validate it, but two people can be delusional everybody could be delusional. We only have 5 sense and a brain. If we could receive information through a sixth or seventh sense, our perceptions would be very different.
A leap of faith? How? It’s a matter of simple logic.
Let’s go back to regular math. Can you think of an instance where 2+2 does not equal 4? Is man didn’t exist would 2+2 still equal 4? Of course, mathematical equations are universal truths. That are the case no matter what and they always were and will be.
Right. So why do you separate thought, or objects in thought, from the whole: the brain/body?
[/quote]
Because it tells you why. If you don’t try to break things apart you’ll never know why. You can drive a car even though you don’t know how it works, but you don’t know shit about cars unless you start looking at the pieces.
Can I pose another question to you?
Science works off the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.
The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
[/quote]
I agree with your statistical model in one sense. This is why I am generally a skeptic. I don’t assume that the limited scope of our understanding affords us anything like absolute knowledge. This is actually the most interesting thing to me about science… there will always be something new to learn.
[/quote]
You have a sampling level that affords you a confidence of 0. That is logically equivalent to no evidence. This is basic statistics.[/quote]
No. It is most definitely not Zero. It could be a really small number, but it is not Zero. Even in an infinite scale, positive integers are not all zero.
Furthermore, my confidence level in many of the axioms of science is considerably higher than my confidence in the necessity of a prime mover. [/quote]
Show me the math.[/quote]
Let’s make this easier on everybody. Here are various forms of the argument and counter arguments. Wiki does a good job here. Rather than bastardizing the argument, everybody can get on the same page.
Take special note of the Argument from Contingency. It’s important because it take time out of the problem…
This is a very detailed link, but if you can get through it is worth it.
“god” and “a cause” are two very different things.
[/quote]
depends on what you mean by each. A cause is god to a deist.
I’m not a determinist, at least not really. I don’t believe in the possibility of scientific determination. There is still chance involved in the universe. Like playing craps. The dice allow room for possible free will because they aren’t predictable. BUT the dice coming up on a certain number is still an exact cause for the events that happen. I think there is room for both causation and free will, at least to an extent.
And I’m not using the universe. I using the universes lack of ability to explain itself. and by that logic the cause is NOT bound by the rules of the universe.
And I can’t say weather an initial cause needs a cause because it is specifically not part of this universe.
I just know that an atom can’t exist of it’s own accord.[/quote]
Wasn’t it you who earlier in this thread argued that unpredictability and non-determinism are not the same thing?
Also, you certainly did use the universe to come to the conclusion that all things must have a cause. This is my point. You draw the cause and effect relationship from observation of the physical universe. If not… then, from where do you draw the need for cause and effect?[/quote]
LOL. But predictability and determinism (the theory) really are. There is wiggle room in the future state of physical system. I’m not a determinist. But I also never claimed to be a non-determinist because I believe everything has a cause. I believe everything has a cause but that systems are NOT necessarily pre-determined.
I see causality and determination as 2 slightly different things.[/quote]
Determinism is a whole different ball of wax. There’s not enough time or space on the T-Nation servers to handle both topics. Causation is not the same topic…