God does not exist

  • 395 Replies
  • 53393 Views
God does not exist
« Reply #360 on: November 27, 2006, 02:22:45 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Right now I'm taking location in space and time as the defining property for objects existing outside of my consciousness. You have a location in space and time if and only if you exist outside of my consciousness.


Isn't location in "space" and "time" a defining property?  If so, can't that only be established through consciousness?  I'm not referring to your consciousness, but all consciousness.

You're essentially saying: "Things exist even when nobody (or nothing) is experiencing them."  My question is, why are you saying this?
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
God does not exist
« Reply #361 on: November 27, 2006, 02:40:39 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
You're essentially saying: "Things exist even when nobody (or nothing) is experiencing them."  My question is, why are you saying this?


That is indeed what I am saying.  I think to say otherwise is needlessly egocentric.  I don't think there's anything special about my consciousness, another human's consciousness, or another arguably conscious animal's consciousness.  The universe is sufficiently regular for me to be comfortable in the admittedly unprovable belief that it really would exist even if I didn't.

I feel like philosophy is at that stage that infants are at, when things go outside their visual field and they conclude that those things no longer exist.  C'mon.  The world doesn't revolve around anybody's consciousness.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
God does not exist
« Reply #362 on: November 27, 2006, 02:49:29 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Knight"
Philosophers have established that intramental and extramental existence of a thing do not add or detract to it's existence--they only clarify location of existence.


Now you're playing games: word games, at least.


Indeed!

Quote from: "Erasmus"
And I don't think philosophers have established anything, really, especially not on this level.


This is absolutely correct; prominent philosophers disagree on EVERYTHING! Actually, that might be a good definition for a philosopher.  :wink: I think it is certain that, if at any time all of a philosopher's contemporaries agreed with him, it wasn't a very good idea anyway.


Firstly, I think saying "if something is conceived, it exists" is confusing the issue, because that means that intramental "in my head" existence necessarily implies extramental "outside my head" existence, which is sheer lunacy.

Secondly, if I were to suppose the football were an illusion, meaning it would not physically and "extramentally"exist, there is no reason I couldn't play football. This is the same reason why Solipsists can practice science, naturalists can search for ghosts and attempt witchcraft, and a perfectly sane person can RP on WoW for 400 hours in a year.

Thirdly, equating science and faith is like placing sanity and insanity on the same level. Both are methods of living with set mental functions. Faith is inherently rationally deficient, and religious beliefs just stack more "axioms" (in quotes because they are often untrue) on top of the assumptions of a secular, logical mind.


As for your statement about the certainty of thinking existing (albeit that existing isn't well defined), well, I hope you will join me in my new topic, Cogito ergo sum: not an absolute truth after all which I am hoping will invite hot dispute, and perhaps, to my delight, I will somehow be proven wrong.

God does not exist
« Reply #363 on: November 27, 2006, 03:17:20 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
That is indeed what I am saying. I think to say otherwise is needlessly egocentric.


Hmmm... egocentric?

Quote from: "Erasmus"
I don't think there's anything special about my consciousness, another human's consciousness, or another arguably conscious animal's consciousness.


Nothing special?  Consciousness is what defines things.  Definition is what allows things to exist.  Thus, the very existence of a thing is dependent upon some sense of definition.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
I feel like philosophy is at that stage that infants are at, when things go outside their visual field and they conclude that those things no longer exist.


How can they exist if they are not defined?

Quote from: "Erasmus"
C'mon. The world doesn't revolve around anybody's consciousness.


Existence revolves around consciousness.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
prominent philosophers disagree on EVERYTHING! Actually, that might be a good definition for a philosopher.


Logic itself is the authority that philosophers subscribe to.  Keep that in mind.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
I think it is certain that, if at any time all of a philosopher's contemporaries agreed with him, it wasn't a very good idea anyway.


Uhhhh why?  Wouldn't that just mean that the philosopher probably proved something to be necessarily true?

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Firstly, I think saying "if something is conceived, it exists" is confusing the issue, because that means that intramental "in my head" existence necessarily implies extramental "outside my head" existence, which is sheer lunacy.


No, it doesn't necessarily imply that at all.

Quote
Secondly, if I were to suppose the football were an illusion, meaning it would not physically and "extramentally"exist, there is no reason I couldn't play football.


That's not denying the existence of the football.  By conceiving of the football that you're playing with you're ensuring that the football necessarily exists phenomenologically.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Faith is inherently rationally deficient


Can you demonstrate this?

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
religious beliefs just stack more "axioms" (in quotes because they are often untrue)


I'm guessing that you're saying "untrue" because the axioms in a given religious methodology do not conform to the "truth" given in another methodology (science).  Sorry sparky, but that's a two-way street.  A person operating within a religious methodology might know that the truth within that methodology does not conform to the axioms you, as a scientist, accept as self-evidently true.  Because science and Christianity are regional methodologies, they can't just be used to disprove each other.  You need to use a universal methodology to show that the axioms of one methodology are untrue (thus, you use logical arguments and not scientific arguments to show that God doesn't exist).
ooyakasha!

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
God does not exist
« Reply #364 on: November 27, 2006, 03:44:57 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Existence revolves around consciousness.


I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that before you just repeat it dogmatically.

Quote from: "Knight"
That's not denying the existence of the football.  By conceiving of the football that you're playing with you're ensuring that the football necessarily exists phenomenologically.


The idea of the football and the football are not the same thing. If you are saying the idea or perception of the ball exists, be clear. If you are saying the idea of the football and the football are the same thing, you are going to have to demonstrate why this is so.

Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Faith is inherently rationally deficient


Can you demonstrate this?


Faith is believing something as truth because someone tells you to, rather than anything to do with its truthfulness or untruthfulness. If finding truth is a goal, this is one of the worst ways to achieve this goal, as it rests on sheer probability rather than any sort of investigation. Also, faith beliefs often include paradoxes, that are believed regardless, nearly guaranteeing the beliefs are false, and that the truth has not been achieved.  

If finding truth is a goal, faith is (for the aforementioned reasons) an extremely irrational way of going about it.

Quote from: "Knight"
You need to use a universal methodology to show that the axioms of one methodology are untrue (thus, you use logical arguments and not scientific arguments to show that God doesn't exist).


That would be valid, except that logic isn't a universal methodology. That's the very idea of fundamentalism.

Besides, logical arguments would in turn say scientific arguments are valid, so it has nothing to do with which people's philosophical subscriptions, only the most convincing way to bargain with simpletons.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
God does not exist
« Reply #365 on: November 27, 2006, 04:04:18 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Consciousness is what defines things.  Definition is what allows things to exist.  Thus, the very existence of a thing is dependent upon some sense of definition.

...

How can they exist if they are not defined?

...

Existence revolves around consciousness.


This is what I mean by "egocentric".  You haven't demonstrated that things need to be defined (by a human) before they can exist; you've merely stated it.  I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by "Consciousness is what defines things," especially addressing the issues of what it means for a thing to be defined, and why it is that only consciousness can achieve this effect, and perhaps also touching on what status a thing has before it gets defined by sombody's consciousness.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

God does not exist
« Reply #366 on: November 27, 2006, 05:07:39 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Nothing special? Consciousness is what defines things. Definition is what allows things to exist.


So then how can any definition ever be wrong?  What happens when two Consciousnesses disagree on definitions?  Is there some kind of Quantum split where both are right?  should we start a new religion where we have a God as the final arbitrator, whose sole purpose is to be the highest level of Consciousness to define our reality?

Did atoms not exist until someone thought of them?  Do spirits create diseases until someone rationalizes that they are caused by micro organisms?  

That's just sloppy thinking.  Definitions are reflections of existence, they are tools for our understanding, not for creation...Or would me defining a world destroying space amoeba cause it's creation?

God does not exist
« Reply #367 on: November 27, 2006, 05:49:14 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "I"
Existence revolves around consciousness.



I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that before you just repeat it dogmatically.


If something is to exist, it must be definite.  In order to determine definition, there must be something that determines the defintion.  Consciousness determines the definition of things.  Thus, when consciousness exists, definitions exist, and things exist.  Some people say "Well, even if no conscious being conceives of a thing, it still exists."  What many of them must rely on, though, is the concept of god (in order for this to work).  Perhaps god is "that which determines the definition of things and thus, causes their existence."  If this is the case for you, what are you taking 'god' to be?

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
If you are saying the idea or perception of the ball exists, be clear.


Yes, that's what I was saying I think.  The phenomenological existence of the football is "the football that appears."

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
If you are saying the idea of the football and the football are the same thing, you are going to have to demonstrate why this is so.


The question is, why are they different?  If you go outside and play with a football right now, why is the existence of the ball any different if you believe that it exists in fundamental reality?

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Faith is believing something as truth because someone tells you to, rather than anything to do with its truthfulness or untruthfulness.


Yes, because "faith" beliefs are beliefs that have no truth value.  They cannot be determined to be true or false within the given methodology.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Also, faith beliefs often include paradoxes, that are believed regardless, nearly guaranteeing the beliefs are false, and that the truth has not been achieved.


I agree with you.  There are many "beliefs" that simply cannot be because they are logically self-defeating.  However, I'm not sure I would call these "faith" beliefs.  For one, their truth value can be determined to be false (within the universal methodology of logic).  However you define something like this, I like to believe that no rational person would still take beliefs on faith that they have been shown are absolutely impossible.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
If finding truth is a goal, faith is (for the aforementioned reasons) an extremely irrational way of going about it.


Hmmm... I'm not sure you showed the rational obligation to believe that faith beliefs are irrational.  But whatever.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"
That would be valid, except that logic isn't a universal methodology.


*shrug* Okay Ubuntu, whatever you say.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
You haven't demonstrated that things need to be defined (by a human) before they can exist; you've merely stated it.


Yikes.  I hope I haven't claimed that.  I don't mean that things need to be defined by a human being, but rather, by some kind of definer.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by "Consciousness is what defines things," especially addressing the issues of what it means for a thing to be defined, and why it is that only consciousness can achieve this effect, and perhaps also touching on what status a thing has before it gets defined by sombody's consciousness.


What I mean by "A thing must be defined to exist" is that if a thing must be definite to exist.  That is, it must be a "this" and not a "that."  I'll have to check my facts on whether or not only consciousness can define things.  In the meantime, you can list some other definers.  As for the "what status a thing has before it gets defined":  well, if a thing is not defined, then it simply isn't.

Quote from: "Curious"
What happens when two Consciousnesses disagree on definitions?


I don't know.  I suppose they would experience things differently.

Quote from: "Curious"
should we start a new religion where we have a God as the final arbitrator, whose sole purpose is to be the highest level of Consciousness to define our reality?


Wouldn't be new by any means.

Quote from: "Curious"
Did atoms not exist until someone thought of them?


My philosophy professor, I believe, would argue "no."

Quote from: "Curious"
That's just sloppy thinking.


Or... maybe it's philosophical thinking.  Your thinking is that things exist independent of them being conceived.  My question to you is, "why?"  You cannot demonstrate that things actually exist, so why do you believe it at all?  Wouldn't this be "sloppy thinking?"  Many people tend to think so.

Quote from: "Curious"
Definitions are reflections of existence, they are tools for our understanding, not for creation...


Are you sure?  A thing can exist without being definite and without having definite properties?
ooyakasha!

God does not exist
« Reply #368 on: November 27, 2006, 06:08:39 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"

Quote from: "Curious"
Did atoms not exist until someone thought of them?


My philosophy professor, I believe, would argue "no."

Quote from: "Curious"
That's just sloppy thinking.


Or... maybe it's philosophical thinking.  Your thinking is that things exist independent of them being conceived.  My question to you is, "why?"  You cannot demonstrate that things actually exist, so why do you believe it at all?  Wouldn't this be "sloppy thinking?"  Many people tend to think so.

Quote from: "Curious"
Definitions are reflections of existence, they are tools for our understanding, not for creation...


Are you sure?  A thing can exist without being definite and without having definite properties?


Does not love exist?  Does it have definite properties?  A thought? A Dream? What are the properties of the quantum particles?  The dimentions above our standard 4?  We know qualities of many things, but not all qualities of all things.  They still exist, because we are affected by them, but we are not all knowing and learn more everyday.  To say that the qualities do not exist until we look for them is to make existance mutable and subject to paradox.

In such an existance, two people meet, and have two different definitions for the same thing (Say the shape of the earth)  when they create the ultimate test, one that can only point to one of the two possibilities, one reality must dissolve.

God does not exist
« Reply #369 on: November 27, 2006, 06:25:39 PM »
Quote from: "Curious"
In such an existance, two people meet, and have two different definitions for the same thing (Say the shape of the earth) when they create the ultimate test, one that can only point to one of the two possibilities, one reality must dissolve.


Let's look at an example of this.  In October of 1917 an event occurred which is called "The Miracle of the Sun."  Basically, several thousand people got together to see an appearing of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  What occurred was that several thousand people reported seeing the sun dance across the sky, zig-zag down closer to the earth, and then go back to its original position.  At the same time, I believe, the sun was spinning like a disk and changing colors.

Several other people claimed that they didn't experience this at all.  To them, the sun just stayed where they expected it to stay and none of that other stuff happened.  So, which one is it?  There's only one truth, after all.  So which story is "the one and only true story"?

Check the story out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun
ooyakasha!

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
God does not exist
« Reply #370 on: November 27, 2006, 08:03:27 PM »
-David
E pur si muove!

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
God does not exist
« Reply #371 on: November 27, 2006, 08:23:53 PM »
Haha.  I love it.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

God does not exist
« Reply #372 on: November 27, 2006, 08:26:44 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Curious"
In such an existence, two people meet, and have two different definitions for the same thing (Say the shape of the earth) when they create the ultimate test, one that can only point to one of the two possibilities, one reality must dissolve.


Let's look at an example of this.  In October of 1917 an event occurred which is called "The Miracle of the Sun."  Basically, several thousand people got together to see an appearing of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  What occurred was that several thousand people reported seeing the sun dance across the sky, zig-zag down closer to the earth, and then go back to its original position.  At the same time, I believe, the sun was spinning like a disk and changing colors.

Several other people claimed that they didn't experience this at all.  To them, the sun just stayed where they expected it to stay and none of that other stuff happened.  So, which one is it?  There's only one truth, after all.  So which story is "the one and only true story"?

Check the story out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun


Not a bad example, thousands of people gathered together desiring to witness a religious experience.  A storm passes, people are directed to look up, and the sun apparently wobbles, spins "dances".  Some report it to have done a lot of movement, and others report not seeing anything out of the ordinary.

Several possible explanations,

Miracle, Solar Flare, High altitude clouds, mass hysteria, UFO, Conspiracy.

My belief, opinion, or knowledge of the event do not change it.  People's perceptions were different.  Peoples beliefs about what they saw were different, but to believe that each saw something different leads down a path the defies any logic or reason.

Added: A more simple example, My uncle is a member of the magician's union, he used to get us tickets to their annual Banquet, which included stage presentations of about 10 different Magicians, and after the show, there were dozens of vendors selling"Tricks".

Part of the audience were magicians, the rest Friends and families.  Just because it look to me that they really did make a Tiger appear on stage out of thin air, doesn't mean it happened that way, I just didn't know the trick.

Or, look at any crime investigation, police have to sort through conflicting reports.  Not that anyone lied necessarily, or their reality was different, but what they perceived was not quite what happened.

One reality, multiple perceptions.  Facts, not truths.

God does not exist
« Reply #373 on: November 27, 2006, 08:28:26 PM »
best pic ever
quote="DiegoDraw"]"And Moses said unto his brethren: 'The Earth is flat!...biznatches,'" [/quote]
DOT INFO

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
God does not exist
« Reply #374 on: November 27, 2006, 08:28:53 PM »
Quote from: "Curious"
Several possible explinations,

Miracle, Solar Flare, High altitude clouds, mass hysteria, UFO, Conspiracy.


I'm thinking that maybe they have a little too much lead, or LSD in their water.  One of the two.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

God does not exist
« Reply #375 on: November 27, 2006, 08:41:52 PM »
Quote from: "Curious"
People's perceptions were different. Peoples beliefs about what they saw were different


Well...

Several thousand people claim that some pretty strange phenomena occured in regards to the sun that day, yet several thousand other people claim that nothing out of the ordinary happened.  I guess you could be like thedigitalnomad and go on believing that several thousand people were under the influence of LSD back in 1917 :-) --note, LSD was first synthesized in the late 1930s.
ooyakasha!

God does not exist
« Reply #376 on: November 27, 2006, 09:03:03 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Curious"
People's perceptions were different. Peoples beliefs about what they saw were different


Well...

Several thousand people claim that some pretty strange phenomena occurred in regards to the sun that day, yet several thousand other people claim that nothing out of the ordinary happened.  I guess you could be like thedigitalnomad and go on believing that several thousand people were under the influence of LSD back in 1917 :-) --note, LSD was first synthesized in the late 1930s.


You say several thousands, yet the reports I've been able to find only have a handful of witnesses, there were thousands there, and witnesses say that others saw something, but there is nothing to substantiate that thousands saw anything.

The difference is between witnessing and heresay.

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
God does not exist
« Reply #377 on: November 27, 2006, 09:56:18 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
I guess you could be like thedigitalnomad and go on believing that several thousand people were under the influence of LSD back in 1917 :-) --note, LSD was first synthesized in the late 1930s.


Clearly the LSD thing was a joke anyway :P
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

God does not exist
« Reply #378 on: November 27, 2006, 10:08:44 PM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Clearly the LSD thing was a joke anyway


I know.  I bet your belief is that the sun didn't actually do all that crazy stuff that day.  Would I be irrational if I claimed that I believe the sun actually did do that?
ooyakasha!

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
God does not exist
« Reply #379 on: November 27, 2006, 10:17:31 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Clearly the LSD thing was a joke anyway


I know.  I bet your belief is that the sun didn't actually do all that crazy stuff that day.  Would I be irrational if I claimed that I believe the sun actually did do that?

Yes.
-David
E pur si muove!

God does not exist
« Reply #380 on: November 27, 2006, 10:23:41 PM »
Lol.  Why does that constitue ir-rationality?

P.S. I'm going to bed.  That is very rational.
ooyakasha!

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
God does not exist
« Reply #381 on: November 27, 2006, 11:23:45 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Lol.  Why does that constitue ir-rationality?

We have seen the sun do the same thing every day for our entire lives, and the same with the laws of physics. We have records dating back milennia which show all sorts of evidence that the laws of physics were the same back then too. To believe that the laws of physics were suspended one day in 1917 in a small area of Spain is contrary to all experience of how the world works. So yes, it would be irrational.

Quote
P.S. I'm going to bed.  That is very rational.

Yes it is.
-David
E pur si muove!

God does not exist
« Reply #382 on: November 27, 2006, 11:34:31 PM »
Hundreds of people in one spot claim to have seen the same thing.
Millions of others who can see the same object (ie. the Sun) don't see the same thing.

Who's more likely to be right?

In cases like this, you don't say something "can't" have happened, just that it probably didn't.
I heard loud banging on the freezer last night, like every night.
It's possible that a burglar was in the house banging on the freezer.
It's possible that aliens were trying to steal my freezer but their little grey arms just couldn't lift it.
It's possible that the government was conspiring to remove my freezer to make way for the highway.
It's possible that cats were on the freezer and stupidly knocked the food off.

I found the food dish on the ground, the freezer was still in the same spot it was before and the cobwebs behind it looked pretty undisturbed.  Also, as I came out of my room, I noticed a cat running away from the freezer and out the dog door.

Now, it's still possible that the other explainations happened.  Just unlikely.  So I'm going to go with the wild conclusion that it was cat-related.
on't just believe anything.  Believe what seems right.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
God does not exist
« Reply #383 on: November 28, 2006, 12:15:43 AM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Yikes.  I hope I haven't claimed that.  I don't mean that things need to be defined by a human being, but rather, by some kind of definer.


You can replace "human" with "agent" if you like; my complaint remains.

Quote
What I mean by "A thing must be defined to exist" is that if a thing must be definite to exist.  That is, it must be a "this" and not a "that."


?

Quote
I'll have to check my facts on whether or not only consciousness can define things.


"facts"?

Quote
well, if a thing is not defined, then it simply isn't.


Simply isn't defined?  Okay.  This being the crux of the disagreement, I can repeat my viewpoint, or not.

Quote
Quote from: "Curious"
Did atoms not exist until someone thought of them?


My philosophy professor, I believe, would argue "no."


Again, very silly.  Obviously atoms didn't exist qua atoms, but something existed, they just hadn't been labelled as such by a sufficiently empowered labeller.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

God does not exist
« Reply #384 on: November 28, 2006, 08:49:00 AM »
Quote from: "I"
What I mean by "A thing must be defined to exist" is that if a thing must be definite to exist. That is, it must be a "this" and not a "that."


Quote from: "Erasmus"
?


Let me clarify.  If a thing is to exist, it must be definite.  It must have defining properties (small, yellow, round, etc.).  Definition is what distinguishes one thing from another thing (it makes my desk a "this" and not a "that").  Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: "I"
I'll have to check my facts on whether or not only consciousness can define things.


Quote from: "Erasmus"
"facts"?


I was using the "check my facts" phrase in the general sense that we usually tend to use it in.  What I mean is, I'll try to find out if there are other things that can define things other than consciousness.  I'm thinking of one right now that I'm surprised you haven't mentioned yet.

Quote from: "I"
well, if a thing is not defined, then it simply isn't.


Quote from: "Erasmus"
Simply isn't defined?


Sorry for the confusing wording again.  That's not what I meant by "it simply isn't."  What I meant was "it simply isn't in existence" or "it simply does not exist."

Quote from: "I"
My philosophy professor, I believe, would argue "no."


Quote from: "Erasmus"
Again, very silly. Obviously atoms didn't exist qua atoms, but something existed, they just hadn't been labelled as such by a sufficiently empowered labeller.


Okay.  That's what I always believed too.  I don't expect you to change your belief on the matter based on my testimony (basically because I cannot argue the points as well as an epistemologist).  I'll be taking Philosophy of Science next semester with the same professor so perhaps I'll get a better grasp of the subject and be able to explain it more then.  Otherwise, I'll look for books on this matter that might help.

Interestingly, my professor told us a story in class when we were talking about this subject.  He had a friend in the science department, who, upon learning about this, came close to killing himself.  He had grown up believing that "things exist outside of his thinking about them."  He had been trained to think that way for years.  We all have.  It's comforting to think that way.  But once he realized what Kant said about the matter, he found it impossible to argue with Kant.  I've seen my classmates feel the same resistance to this belief.  Oh well, I think it just makes things ever more fascinating.

In conclusion, here, you don't have to agree with me now.  It's becoming apparent that I won't convince you unless I go back and watch all those lectures (we can view them online), and I don't have time to do that now.  Or I guess I could get my philosophy professor to join this forum.  Nah, I bet he has better things to do with his time.  Oh crap I have to go to work.
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
God does not exist
« Reply #385 on: November 28, 2006, 12:52:52 PM »
I've read about Kant before; this isn't the first time I've heard these ideas.  A couple of years ago I was more in agreement, but then I.... how shall I say it, woke up to reality?

There was a short story in which a mathematician suggests that the laws of mathematics and physics are not specified until tested.  For example, in the early universe, before two particles ever collided, the mathematics governing the laws of physics governing particle collisions did not exist, and, in fact, could have turned out any old way.  She further hypothesizes that somewhere very distant, in an isolated part of the universe, the laws of mathematics might be different.  Not on the very simple levels of arithmetic, probably, but Godel promises us that there will be true statements that we cannot prove, or, that there will be statements that can be proven both true and false.  Maybe far away there's a statement that they've proven true, that has been proven false here.

Anyway the characters design a computer to look for inconsistencies and undiscovered statements in mathematics and test them.  Eventually it actually finds some inconsistencies.  After a while they find that they are actually changing mathematics, because the statements they discover in some way have an affect on the mathematics that's already known.  Machines stop working, gravity behaves differently, etc.  Things go bad, until they turn the computer off, or something like that.

I don't know what the author's intent with this story was, but what I learned from it is this: philosophy, mathematics, physics, etc. are all just descriptive, not prescriptive.  Our "laws" don't tell the universe what to do.  If we change them, the universe won't change as a result.  As far as the universe is concerned, it's all just another arrangement of electrical signals in our brains, or shards of graphite stuck to compressed dead trees.  In other words, what we believe to be true about the universe does not affect what's really true about the universe in any way, and I think this applies to our philosophy as well.  Kant can think what he likes about reality, and I can agree or disagree, but the Earth is going to continue spinning around the sun, totally oblivious to our little intellectual pursuits.  That's why I say that this view is egotistical: it implies that somehow, nature thinks that what we think is important.  I take it one step farther and claim that nature wouldn't really notice if we didn't have the capacity for rational thought, or if we didn't exist, or indeed if agents didn't exist anywhere.  Even if we weren't there, the universe still would be.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

God does not exist
« Reply #386 on: November 28, 2006, 01:08:19 PM »
AMEN

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
God does not exist
« Reply #387 on: November 29, 2006, 04:11:50 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
"things exist outside of his thinking about them"


And why wouldn't they? That would imply that he is the only entity that exists,  therefore, Solipsism is true.

God does not exist
« Reply #388 on: November 29, 2006, 06:14:29 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
And why wouldn't they?


Well, there's no justification for believing it.  But as I've said, I'm definitely not educated about the topic enough to convince you or Erasmus, so I'm kind of just going to throw in the towel and wave a white flag.  I could just go back and watch all the online lectures and then come back here and argue it again, but I think I'll wait until we talk about it again next semester in Philosophy of Science and then come back and argue this point.  Until then...  Well, I think our original debate was about methodology.  I think we'll study them next semester too and I'll continue to study the nature of methodologies.  Or maybe I'll watch those lectures within the next few weeks.  Eh *shrug*
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
God does not exist
« Reply #389 on: November 29, 2006, 06:19:23 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
I could just go back and watch all the online lectures and then come back here and argue it again,


What online lectures?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?