tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3026148758196395794..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Arguing Against GodLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63603959314541898432007-04-13T17:27:00.000-04:002007-04-13T17:27:00.000-04:00About the solipsism thing hahaCognition is somethi...About the solipsism thing haha<BR/><BR/>Cognition is something that occurs to an organism. Without organism, there is no cognition. And cognition is not mere absortion of stimuli by the senses. <BR/>To science, solipsisim does not make sense; but neither does representationism. A biological explanation, somewhat in between, provides the best approach. <BR/>To acknowledge this does not erode the foundations of science. It provides no reason to question the well-documented facts and everyday regularities of our world. Rather it allows us to scientifically expect many questions that may not be clear, or how "realities" are later recongnized as illusory. This, from the "filling in" of the eye's blindspot, down to the history of science.<BR/><BR/>Biologically, we can expect our relation to reality to sometimes NOT be so straightforwardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41940931542393911852007-04-13T09:58:00.000-04:002007-04-13T09:58:00.000-04:00Anonymous:"The existence of a virtual particle may...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>"The existence of a virtual particle may not be as substantial as a cat."<BR/><BR/>Ah, I see. So you think objects predicted by a theory and observed by its effects have qualitatively different existence depending on how we label them.<BR/><BR/>I don't think realists would agree.<BR/><BR/>"That would depend on the solipsist (there are various degrees)."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. I picked the definition that is amenable to analysis. As such, I think it describes all the positions.<BR/><BR/>"The point is that your consciousness would be changed, and you may not be a solipsist anymore."<BR/><BR/>Yes, according to a more realistic world view that is true. But I don't think a solipsist would agree, since it is amenable for incorporation into his view.<BR/><BR/>"my definition, that just happened to overlap with the natural definition"<BR/><BR/>Ah, I see. I considered the usual definition where there is no overlap. I don't think one can have such an overlap either, since when there is a natural description for aspects of supernatural phenomena.<BR/><BR/>In any case, since the definition is specific for you, you can keep it. ;-)<BR/><BR/>"And some might argue that the natural description isn't really very descriptive (why does it decay?)"<BR/><BR/>Oh, it is fully descriptive since QM will both tell us that the decays must be stochastic and what distributions they take. <BR/><BR/>We can even continue and discuss the details of a specific mechanism, if we pick a decay. <BR/><BR/>So take alpha decay. Sometimes the movements of particles in a nucleus of a decay-able atom by chance forms aggregates which is an alpha particle. Subsequently they have a tiny probability of tunneling out of the nucleus barrier. The movements and the barrier is described by nuclear forces which ultimately derives from the strong force. <BR/><BR/>We can learn (and do) learn more about the nucleus, the strong force effects and tunneling. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous:<BR/>"Because something is not parsimonious (in your view), does not make it not scientific. If it's falsifiable and testable, it's a scientific proposition."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. I was discussing if it was a philosophy compatible with science. <BR/><BR/>It is not.Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46417379239334551972007-04-12T20:42:00.000-04:002007-04-12T20:42:00.000-04:00Catholics are the same as creationists as far as p...Catholics are the same as creationists as far as pushing that god is the rational conclusion. <BR/>catholics do not focus on denying evolution as a part of their argument, but not denying any well-established scientific fact is not good enough <BR/>They cannot maintain that god is the ony rational thing. <BR/>And the fact that they say its all rational, while ignoring their loaded traditions and other notorious mega-chunks of irrationality within catholicism, miracles, "revelead truths"... no comments...<BR/>Catholicism may be the religion of hypocrisy "par excellence" faking it has no faith (but oh yes it does!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12071269438787252862007-04-12T19:33:00.000-04:002007-04-12T19:33:00.000-04:00I am not dodging any relevant topicThe catholic id...I am not dodging any relevant topic<BR/>The catholic idea, that the existence of god can be known with certainty through pure reason (a shameless peace of BS by all means) is a perfect example of "wrong", what I am fighting against: <BR/>The notion that the existence of god is a topic that can be rationally-scientifically tested. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins is doing the same thing, when he argues he has found no evidence for god, he implies scientific evidence can prove the existence of god: convergence with the catholics. They agree on that but will eternally disagree on whether it has or hasn't been proved. They agree there is evidecne, but they cannot agree on what would be evidence. What a sorry mess."Empiricism" cut loose from any theoretical roots. "Pseudoempiricism", because it's worth just nothing.<BR/><BR/>And, whether catholic theologians realize it or not, faith is necessary for people to believe in god. You just don't see god at your doorstep every morning, you know. You DO need to "believe".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53021108935642647422007-04-12T18:32:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:32:00.000-04:00Ah, now we have to change the definition of "relig...Ah, now we have to change the definition of "religion" so you don't have to admit you're talking rubbish. Priceless.<BR/><BR/>Almost all religious believers think that it's reasonable to believe as they do, and that the differently-believing and unbelieving are unreasonable. Anyone who hasn't spent his entire life in a cave knows that.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36965339627500492142007-04-12T18:31:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:31:00.000-04:00it has worked every time for me, with very religio...it has worked every time for me, with very religious peopleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32446788857659634062007-04-12T18:19:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:19:00.000-04:00well., that's why the catholic church (and most we...well., that's why the catholic church (and most western religions) are more of a mockery of religion. teh religions of the east have more true mysticism to them, adn spend far less time in the futile task of finding rational jstfications for thir gods and miracles.<BR/>the reason for this is taht western culture is such a fan of ratioanlism taht even religions want to apper as rational.<BR/>But you ad me, Steve, know that they are NOT rational. Right? No matter what they say, I find most people will realize this, that in fact there IS need for faith in religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89100030081878021462007-04-12T18:00:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:00:00.000-04:00Wrong as usual. It remains, for example, the offic...Wrong as usual. It remains, for example, the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the existence of God can be known with certainty through the operation of reason alone.<BR/><BR/>The idea that faith is <I>contrary</I> to reason is a grave heresy in mainstream Christian tradition and I've never heard of a Christian who holds it.<BR/>(It <I>may</I> have been flirted with by the early Church Father Tertullian if the ascription of the famous "credo quia absurdum" to him is really correct.) The slightly milder idea that belief is held by faith alone without the <I>need</I> for reason is called fideism and is also very much contrary to historical Christian teaching, especially since the time of Aquinas; it is professed today only by a tiny minority of very liberal Christians.<BR/><BR/><BR/>First rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13376220415324286532007-04-12T17:01:00.000-04:002007-04-12T17:01:00.000-04:00That argument has indeed become very rare, not onl...That argument has indeed become very rare, not only within philosophy. I also doubt seriously that any major religion has maintained that faith in god is unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>This is because no matter how suggestive and clever is your rational argument for god, you cannot say it is definite in a way such that those who do not agree with you are "irrational" (unless you are a deluded creationist).<BR/>Actually, the same happens with the god topic with atheism, too. There are very suggestive, rational arguments that there is no god, but it we are STILL talking about *god* and it is still NOT a scientific topic. <BR/>So, to say that god does not exist, you don't need to go around tastelessly hammering your opinion about god as "the only rational thing" or " a plain scientific fact" (the pathetic bizarro version of the creationist) <BR/>The correct thing to do is to point out the existence of god is not a scientifically testable topic.<BR/><BR/>But, you choose to imitate the creationist fundie, calling all those that do not align with your specific cultural baggage "idiots" (devoid of reason)<BR/><BR/>Anyone can see through you, Steve. You're just "another" of a very, very predictable flock of amateur "rationalists" <BR/><BR/>I just wonder where did Dunbar go... he was able to come up with some interesting points (unlike yersefl)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68695114960071395522007-04-12T15:53:00.000-04:002007-04-12T15:53:00.000-04:00Project much?Evidently among the many, many thein...Project much?<BR/><BR/>Evidently among the many, many theings you're unaware of is the millenia-long tradition, which is not dead even now (try Googling "Alvin Plantinga"), of philosophers trying to make <I>rational</I> arguments that supposedly prove the existence of God. It's a long way from just being St. Thomas.<BR/><BR/>Idiot.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21024575826088494502007-04-12T15:40:00.000-04:002007-04-12T15:40:00.000-04:00of course, aquinas was dead wrong if he thought fa...of course, aquinas was dead wrong if he thought faith was unnecessary to believe in god...so wrong, in fact, that I sincerely would not expect that from st Thomas. Are you sure you're not just...full of it? heheAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34615320681104060542007-04-12T15:36:00.000-04:002007-04-12T15:36:00.000-04:00I have no doubts that Aquinas gave rational argume...I have no doubts that Aquinas gave rational arguments that god existed, but to say that faith is unnecesary, that reason alone is enough...I'll have to check that one out, given your great reliability haha.<BR/>Anyway I might be wrong onthat but its not a major point. <BR/>Rational arguments about the existence of god can be mixed with faith, but no faith in god required? Nope. Not in any true religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80688402507044196462007-04-12T15:17:00.000-04:002007-04-12T15:17:00.000-04:00Address your complaint to Aquinas, not to me. Yes,...Address your complaint to Aquinas, not to me. Yes, he did indeed hold that the existence of God, and much else besides, could be established by reason alone, though certain Christian dogmas such as the Trinity required faith. Yet another topic you proclaim on confidently without having the slightest idea what you're talking about. Why do you bother?Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89778026328340821542007-04-12T15:12:00.000-04:002007-04-12T15:12:00.000-04:00You think Thomas Aquinas was dumb enough to think ...You think Thomas Aquinas was dumb enough to think he did not need faith in order to believe in god?<BR/>Where did he ever say such a thing, please?<BR/>You obviously think, in sectarian fashion, that because Thomas Aquinas did great progress for philosophy and reason, he could not have been at the same time a man of faith. But if you've ever read two paragraphs from him, you'd know he was indeed a man of faith. <BR/>This may be news to you, but addmitedly believing in god by faith and for no rational reason, does not mean you cannot contribute to reason and science.<BR/><BR/>Only the dumbest religious peole, like creationists, think their belief in god is merely rational and try to prove it with "scientific" evidence. Of course, they do not contribute anything to reason and science... <BR/>Another thing: religon has irrationality and faith, but if openly acknowledged, reason has stepped in. In fact, religions are this mixture of rationality with strategically placed chuks of unreason. People of faith, and some ancient religions, can be very clever. St Thomas, St Augustine, Occam, etc...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26220445969497067182007-04-12T14:52:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:52:00.000-04:00A "rational" belief in god is therefore a clear mo...<I>A "rational" belief in god is therefore a clear mockery of faith</I> <BR/>Funny, Thomas Aquinas certainly didn't think so, to put it mildly. There seems to be no limit to the things you don't understand but are nonetheless happy to gibber about.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61091712852341776012007-04-12T14:46:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:46:00.000-04:00Belief in god HAS to be irrational in any religion...Belief in god HAS to be irrational in any religion worth its salt. If not, faith would not be necessary.<BR/><BR/>A "rational" belief in god is therefore a clear mockery of faith, as well as being a clear mockery of reason (I have said all the time there can't ever be scientific-rational evidence for god). <BR/><BR/>I fail to underastand how it is not clear to you that I have not the slightest intention of endorsing the belief in god with science and reason. It is so oxymoronic I can only conclude you must have serious attention problems.<BR/><BR/>Precisely, the problem I have is with people like you whose arguments imply that evidence of god could just pop up any moment an we'd have to believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74544941586834923702007-04-12T14:36:00.001-04:002007-04-12T14:36:00.001-04:00We're talking about rationality. If you hold that ...We're talking about rationality. If you hold that it's rational to believe in gods, you need to be able to answer Larry's question- what are your "smart" arguments for that belief? Then maybe we'd get somewhere.<BR/><BR/>If you hold that it's not rational, then we agree, and what exactly are you on about?Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21285079738201374102007-04-12T14:36:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:36:00.000-04:00"how do you know that science and math are at the ...<I>"how do you know that science and math are at the bottom of all things"<BR/>That is not why solipsism isn't compatible with science. The problem is that it isn't parsimonious to assume that a specific part of reality (I hesitate to say "nature" here) either constructs the rest.</I><BR/><BR/>Because something is not parsimonious (in your view), does not make it not scientific. If it's falsifiable and testable, it's a scientific proposition.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I didn't say solipsism was necessarily scientific, only that there's a small possibility it could be falsified by one or more individuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90652423014253974852007-04-12T14:33:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:33:00.000-04:00watcha talking about?If you cannot refute a concep...watcha talking about?<BR/>If you cannot refute a concept like god, whining that it is religious is stupid. OF COURSE IS GOING TO BE RELIGIOUS!! We are talking about *god* for darwin's sake. That is my whole point. I'm doing you the favor of telling you it is a waste of time to ponder a religious topic like that with science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58179273255162458932007-04-12T14:27:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:27:00.000-04:00No it didn't fail, because it was my definition, t...<I>No it didn't fail, because it was my definition, that just happened to overlap with the natural definition.</I><BR/><BR/>Heads I win, tails you lose, eh? How... religious.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83422484346415465322007-04-12T14:19:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:19:00.000-04:00"But there is a difference between microscopic and...<I>"But there is a difference between microscopic and macroscopic QM existence, even if it's only wavelength."<BR/>I fail to see your point if superposition is impossible.</I><BR/><BR/>The existence of a virtual particle may not be as substantial as a cat. The position and momentum of a subatomic particle may not be quite as substantial as those of your car. <BR/><BR/><I>"if there was some technological way to link or merge your consciousness with someone or something else, so you could experience an alien consciousness directly."<BR/>Also here I fail to see the point. A solipsist claims that any type of observations is a construct.</I><BR/><BR/>That would depend on the solipsist (there are various degrees). The point is that your consciousness would be changed, and you may not be a solipsist anymore.<BR/><BR/><I>"The radioactivity example was only used to test a possible definition of "supernatural"."<BR/><BR/>The point was that there is a natural description, so the test failed.</I><BR/>No it didn't fail, because it was my definition, that just happened to overlap with the natural definition. And some might argue that the natural description isn't really very descriptive (why does it decay?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29603853073787598582007-04-12T14:17:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:17:00.000-04:00Oh, I see you mean that we only have indirect evid...Oh, I see you mean that we only have indirect evidece for atoms becuase we can't just "see" them<BR/>ha..haha <BR/>yeah, a great philosopher of science you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38394053932177273652007-04-12T14:14:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:14:00.000-04:00the correct statement is: there can be no scientif...the correct statement is: there can be no scientific evidence for the existence of the supernatural (like god)<BR/><BR/>if you say "what we cannot see does not exist", it is misguiding, since it implies that in any moment we may see god and have to accept its existence. <BR/><BR/>The real situation is, there is no scientific observation that could confirm the existence of god. <BR/><BR/>We've already seen how problematic that is for you. You have not come up with scientific evidence that could prove god. What you have proposed does nothing of the sort (asides from being just ridiculous)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27574674956813633162007-04-12T14:06:00.000-04:002007-04-12T14:06:00.000-04:00My idiot friend, can you see electrons, or quarks,...My idiot friend, can you see electrons, or quarks, just by looking? That's what is meant by "at least indirectly".Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77187339804072892302007-04-12T13:57:00.000-04:002007-04-12T13:57:00.000-04:00" at least indirectly", huh? PffffffThere you go, ..." at least indirectly", huh? Pffffff<BR/>There you go, opening the window for the creationist to climb in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com