Conquer Club

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Luns pointed this out before, people like you and Guiscard may satirize theists all hours of the day, but (the non-existant) GOD FORBID any believer attempts such a thing. Oh no, that would be blasphemy (if you acknowledged that you guys tend to think that way, if not the concept per say) should it ever happen. The way I'm seeing it, Naps is just doing the same thing, only with less of Luns's tact.

Your argument would have a great deal of relevance... were a religious argument the ultimate cause of that little argument you quoted. It started as a tangent to the actual porpose of this thread and devolved from there. At no point was religion involved anywhere.

Anyways, to the actual purpose of this thread: no, I don't think they're valid. Using very limited human experience and intuition of the universe alone to make huge, unconfirmable predictions is an almost certain way to lose any credibility you may once have possessed.
And let's not even get started on that one that requires humanity to be capable of imagining infinity...

Priori reasoning can be used to determine the existence of small, confirmable objects. They are absolutely useless when confronted with something so hideously huge and utterly outside of human experience as God, however.

Jenos Ridan wrote:The way I'm seeing it, Naps is just doing the same thing, only with less of Luns's tact.

Still waiting on that quote, Yappy.

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Luns pointed this out before, people like you and Guiscard may satirize theists all hours of the day, but (the non-existant) GOD FORBID any believer attempts such a thing. Oh no, that would be blasphemy (if you acknowledged that you guys tend to think that way, if not the concept per say) should it ever happen. The way I'm seeing it, Naps is just doing the same thing, only with less of Luns's tact.

Your argument would have a great deal of relevance... were a religious argument the ultimate cause of that little argument you quoted. It started as a tangent to the actual porpose of this thread and devolved from there. At no point was religion involved anywhere.

Anyways, to the actual purpose of this thread: no, I don't think they're valid. Using very limited human experience and intuition of the universe alone to make huge, unconfirmable predictions is an almost certain way to lose any credibility you may once have possessed.
And let's not even get started on that one that requires humanity to be capable of imagining infinity...

Priori reasoning can be used to determine the existence of small, confirmable objects. They are absolutely useless when confronted with something so hideously huge and utterly outside of human experience as God, however.

Proofs from ontology don't require infinity to be imagined, though. They simply try to demonstrate that God is necessarily existence by virtue of his characteristics. There are some formidably complicated proofs involving axiom S5, which I must confess I hardly understand, involved, but they all play on variations of the original Ontological argument.

I find Descartes' version to be the most user-friendly to understand:

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, you may say it's unpersuasive, but that doesn't makeit unsound or invalid, and it does rather call into question your notion that there is no evidence for God. AT the very least, these sorts of proof can demonstrate that it is rational to believe in God.

Guiscard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:The way I'm seeing it, Naps is just doing the same thing, only with less of Luns's tact.

Still waiting on that quote, Yappy.

Can I no be arsed, actually Jizzy.

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Why is necessary existence contained in the idea of God?

Snorri1234 wrote:

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Why is necessary existence contained in the idea of God?

Because God is the sum total of all perfections, and existence is a perfection.

(Of course, you could, like Kant would, argue otherwis...)

Well me being a church goer let me point some thing out,

WE DO NOT KNOW IF GOD EXISTS OR NOT, WE WILL NEVER KNOW, BELIEVING IN GOD OR NOT IS A MATTER OF BELIEVING, NOT KNOWING!

Napoleon Ier wrote:

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So if I clearly and distinctively perceive the feature of existence to be contained in the idea of unicorms, they exist? Even if noone else perceives them that way?

I would not just say that this argument is "unconvincing". I would say it's one of the most stupid things Descartes came up with among some pretty good stuff.

Human perception, to say the least, is a fickle thing, Descartes himself argued from that premise in his Meditationes.
Because he is a finite, imperfect being the idea of an infinite and perfect being has to come from somewhere else, namely from the same infinite, perfect being, which is god. I'm pretty sure that's the main line of his argument there. However, he utterly fails to tell us why he thinks this is the case, why it would be impossible for humans to imagine something that they would think is (infinitely) better than them.


As for your way of putting it, how do you know you "clearly and distinctly" perceive existence to be a part of the idea of god? Maybe you're mistaken. And at any rate, the idea is measured against the thing to which the idea corresponds, not the other way round, if there is no corresponding physical entity the idea is nothing more than a mental construct, and then you can imagine whatever you want as part of it, it still won't exist outside of your brain.

Additionally, shouldn't this thought exercise shine more light on the nature of god, were the process a valid one? Wouldn't it be more clear which ideal of god is right?

To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:

1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)

2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.

It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.

In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.

Really, how that guy became a professor for philosophy is beyond me, unless you left something out.

1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.

And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe. (See 1/0 issue)

2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.

4. is correct under my previously stated premises

5. I'll accept these, mostly because I can't be bothered to think of any other.

6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember? He makes the scientific explanation look very simple, but hides the fact that C and L can take on some vastly complex forms.

7. The universe is dependent on something that is uncertain or will happen in the future? Pardon me, we, humanity, might be a little uncertain about whether and how the universe began, but that does in no way imply that the universe is uncertain about this, no matter what the explanation is. And if it should somehow turn out the universe is infinite, in age or extension either would suffice I think, then we'll be a huge step towards essential explanations, the universe then simply has to exist because there's no alternative.

8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far.

9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.

10. the conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.


And just in case you go and drag up names of famous scientists who mentioned "god", whatever they understood by that, some time. I'm not going to get too far into this, in most cases you have no idea what they meant by "god" and didn't mean, the same goes for me, admittedly, but just because someone mentions god does not mean they mean the god you believe in, or even a personal god at all.

The rest is metaphysical gibberish. Sorry, but that's what I see it as, it has not at all been shown that a creator is necessary, even if a creator were necessary it has not been shown that this being created every last detail and not just set things in motion. Even if you presuppose a creator it is not at all certain the we didn't just happen to evolve.

Awww, MeDeFe beat me to responding to everything. I seem to have been relegated to merely yelling "Yeah!" in the background...

Whoo!

spurgistan wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

Dude, "cogito ergo sum" is kind of shit all by itself. Hell, Descartes never actually said it.

He said 'Je pense donc je suis'. Or sumfin like that.

btownmeggy wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

Dude, "cogito ergo sum" is kind of shit all by itself. Hell, Descartes never actually said it.

He said 'Je pense donc je suis'. Or sumfin like that.

Je pense donc je suis de droite.

Of course, you are presupposing that Decartes wrote in french. He might have spoken french on a day to day basis, but his original work was mostly in Latin.

Well, he wrote Discourse on Method in french, but most all else in latin.

Curmudgeonx wrote:Of course, you are presupposing that Decartes wrote in french. He might have spoken french on a day to day basis, but his original work was mostly in Latin.

Well, he wrote Discourse on Method in french, but most all else in latin.

...

Sigh, I can be a numbskull.


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when my major in undergrad was philosophy. In Discourse, (which was in french) the phrase was "Je pense donc je suis"

While I am not necessarily a fan of ontological arguments as a whole, my epistemolgoy is reformed, so I don't feel the need to argue about it. It is an argument, but apparently not one so devestatingly convincing that no one can help but be convinced.

MR. Nate wrote:While I am not necessarily a fan of ontological arguments as a whole, my epistemolgoy is reformed, so I don't feel the need to argue about it. It is an argument, but apparently not one so devestatingly convincing that no one can help but be convinced.

All that's left is to "convert" those who think differently.

MeDeFe wrote:6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember? He makes the scientific explanation look very simple, but hides the fact that C and L can take on some vastly complex forms.

I dunno about the rest of this gobbledegook, but this is something to which I can respond. I believe Morris' postulate #6 is correct, and we've discussed this before at a couple of points. This postulate, i.e. that scientific explanation of the universe cannot be complete without reference from outside the universe, is formalized mathematically in Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel proved that no system (which the universe must be, if there is a scientific explanation for it) can be fully explained without external reference. This theorem has been tested time and again, and contemplation of its ramifications on human existence are profound. Douglas Hofstadter has written a beautiful analysis of the theorem and its implications with respect to human experience. See 'Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' if you're interested. Whether you're interested or not, though, Godel's incompleteness theorem pretty much rules out the potential for a full scientific explanation of the universe (even if quantum mechanics didn't already).

Colossus wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember? He makes the scientific explanation look very simple, but hides the fact that C and L can take on some vastly complex forms.

I dunno about the rest of this gobbledegook, but this is something to which I can respond. I believe Morris' postulate #6 is correct, and we've discussed this before at a couple of points. This postulate, i.e. that scientific explanation of the universe cannot be complete without reference from outside the universe, is formalized mathematically in Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel proved that no system (which the universe must be, if there is a scientific explanation for it) can be fully explained without external reference. This theorem has been tested time and again, and contemplation of its ramifications on human existence are profound. Douglas Hofstadter has written a beautiful analysis of the theorem and its implications with respect to human experience. See 'Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' if you're interested. Whether you're interested or not, though, Godel's incompleteness theorem pretty much rules out the potential for a full scientific explanation of the universe (even if quantum mechanics didn't already).

As true as it might be, I'm not sure how relevant it is anyhow. I believe Jenos' point is that this concept implies there must be an external. I don't see how that is necessarily required, which I think may have been what MeDeFe might have been aiming at (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, the concept of something being outside the universe implies that it cannot have an effect in our universe, making it irrelevant. But I'll admit my physics/philosophy is based on older Hawking publishings...

It's true but not relevant?

DangerBoy wrote:It's true but not relevant?

Whether there is a full scientific explanation for the universe or not doesn't matter in regard to the rest of the argument I believe.

Jenos Ridan wrote: It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson.

Product of the times. Whether or not renowned scientists believed in god has no bearing on it's rationality. You might as wel say that because some scientists supported eugenics or thought black people were inferior that it's rational to think that.

Snorri1234 wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:It's true but not relevant?

Whether there is a full scientific explanation for the universe or not doesn't matter in regard to the rest of the argument I believe.

Why doesn't it matter? I'm not saying science could give a full explanation for the universe, but it if could, wouldn't that be impressive?