Assumptions

  • 45 Replies
  • 9302 Views
Assumptions
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2007, 11:05:17 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
There is no observation I can make that leads me to the conclusion that God exists. Every observation I can make leads me to the conclusion that the universe exists.
There is no comparison between the two.


One was not stated.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Assumptions
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2007, 11:12:06 AM »
I is no understand. One what was not stated?
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Assumptions
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2007, 11:23:22 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
There is no observation I can make that leads me to the conclusion that God exists. Every observation I can make leads me to the conclusion that the universe exists.
There is no comparison between the two.


dont some believe that God made everything? so they could, and probably would, argue that the observation of their very existance is proof that God is real?

for the record i dont believe in god, i think that religion is just a way for someone to have a set of guidelines to live their life by, like they need some spooky purpose to live towards.  science rules. 8-)
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Assumptions
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2007, 11:25:24 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
If something cannot be observed by physical means, then to state that it doesn't exist because it cannot be observed by physical means would be fallacious.

If something can not be observed period, then to stat that it does exist would be fallacious.

Quote
However, believing in something without evidence is not fallacious

Yes it is.

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Assumptions
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2007, 11:26:40 AM »
Quote from: "Captain_Bubblebum"
dont some believe that God made everything? so they could, and probably would, argue that the observation of their very existance is proof that God is real?


I hope they wouldn't, as that's circular reasoning.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Assumptions
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2007, 11:36:58 AM »
yeah, they aint too bright, probably aint too hot either.  poor saps.
care to take a gander at my Haemorrhoids?

Assumptions
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2007, 06:24:02 PM »
1.  You said

'There is no comparison between God and science'  [Paraphrased]

I agree with this, and wondered why you made your post.

Quote
If something can not be observed period, then to state that it does exist would be fallacious.


Okay, so let's say I am in 12th century Rome, and I say that there is a continent beyond the Atlantic ocean.  Now, at that time observing such a thing, with their technology, would be impossible.  The statement would be correct, but it would be fallacious by your understanding?

Now, granted, God cannot be observed physically, as that is an inherent part of what God is, however, he can be 'observed' in other ways.  Now, our brains seem to be wired in certain ways as to produce these experiences, but is it possible that these 'experiences' can be reproduced?  That maybe the effects of the experience can be reproduced?

Quote
Yes it is.


No, it isn't.

(See, we are getting nowhere)

It is not fallacious, as in a logical fallacy, it is just supposition.  It is not breaking any of the rules of logic, it is just not supported by them either.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

Assumptions
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2007, 06:39:09 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, so let's say I am in 12th century Rome, and I say that there is a continent beyond the Atlantic ocean. Now, at that time observing such a thing, with their technology, would be impossible. The statement would be correct, but it would be fallacious by your understanding?


Yes.  Why believe in something based on no evidence?
ooyakasha!

Assumptions
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2007, 06:41:32 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, so let's say I am in 12th century Rome, and I say that there is a continent beyond the Atlantic ocean. Now, at that time observing such a thing, with their technology, would be impossible. The statement would be correct, but it would be fallacious by your understanding?


Yes.  Why believe in something based on no evidence?


Well, then in the same way, could we not eventually find evidence of God, however remote a possibility, and wouldn't that evidence make the statement 'God does not exist' just as silly and wrong as the statement that 'Australia does not exist?'
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Assumptions
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2007, 07:37:11 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"

I agree with this, and wondered why you made your post.


Ah, I see what you meant.
I made my post because it seems very much to me that Oliwoli is trying to say that the assumption God exists is just as valid as the assumption that the universe exists (and thus trying to draw a comparison between them). This is simply not true. One is an assumption* that is absolutely neccessary to make if we wish to do...well...anything, and the other is a pointless assumption that we have no real reason for making at all.

*I'm also not very much convinced that saying "the universe exists" is even an assumption. An assumption is something we take for granted. Since we have evidence that indicates the universe exists, and no evidence that indicates it doesn't, we aren't taking it for granted.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Assumptions
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2007, 09:09:59 PM »
Okay, I understand, I thought you were posting about something recently said, not the Original Topic.


In that case, I'd like to agree that saying 'the Universe exists' should be axiomatic.  It is a self-truth, an identity.  That is, by doing something, you prove that you exist, or at least that you percieve that you are doing something, and even then, you are doing something by perceiving, now, if you are capable of doing something, then you exist.  If you exist, you either
a.) are everything
 or
b.) are a part of something greater than yourself
Now, if you are everything, you are by definition the Universe.
If you are a part of something greater, than that greater thing is the Universe.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

Assumptions
« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2007, 10:19:06 AM »
The fact that SOMETHING exists beyond outselves is self evident, what im questioning is that fact that it is what we percieve it as.

Also, one can do some things without assuming the universe exists, it just isnt necesarily valid. In the same way we can do plenty of things without assuming God exists, but they arnt valid.

Quote

Since we have evidence that indicates the universe exists, and no evidence that indicates it doesn't, we aren't taking it for granted.


The only evidence we have for the percieved universe is what we see hear touch and smell (and taste) but they are all PART OF THE UNIVERSE, and as such its circular reasoning to use it as evidence for the existance of the universe.

Also, we have evidence to support the evidence that God exists, its just spurious, and there is no evidence to suppose God doesnt exist. We arnt taking God for granted,
ny Conspiricy without a secret society more than 1000 years old isn't worth thinking about

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Assumptions
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2007, 10:33:38 AM »
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
The fact that SOMETHING exists beyond outselves is self evident,


Quote
Also, we have evidence to support the evidence that God exists, its just spurious, and there is no evidence to suppose God doesnt exist. We arnt taking God for granted,


Your ontological architecture stands on shaky foundations, my friend.  Shaky.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

beast

  • 2997
Assumptions
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2007, 04:46:51 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"

Well, then in the same way, could we not eventually find evidence of God, however remote a possibility, and wouldn't that evidence make the statement 'God does not exist' just as silly and wrong as the statement that 'Australia does not exist?'


Obviously if one day we find evidence that suggests that God does exist, we would have to change our views - that's how science works.  At this stage there is no evidence, therefore the statement that "god does not exist" is largely correct.  You could say that a better statement is "there is no reason to suppose that God exists" but for the sake of simplicity when not engaging in a genuinely scientific discussion, I think the first statement is perfectly fine.  Just as if you made the statement that "Australia does not exist" prior to the 17th century then that would be fine.  Science has never denied our ignorance and has always been happy to admit that on some issues it was wrong (because of a lack of evidence).  Religion, on the other hand, thinks it knows all the answers and that it is never wrong.

*

beast

  • 2997
Assumptions
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2007, 04:56:33 PM »
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
The fact that SOMETHING exists beyond outselves is self evident, what im questioning is that fact that it is what we percieve it as.

Also, one can do some things without assuming the universe exists, it just isnt necesarily valid. In the same way we can do plenty of things without assuming God exists, but they arnt valid.


Explain yourself.  Don't just say "We can do plenty of things without assuming God exists, but they arnt [sic] valid," tell us why they aren't valid.  It's completely meaningless to make such a statement without backing it up with argument.  You must know that people disagree with you and we'll just dismiss your arguments if you can't actually convince us that what you're saying is true.  Are you trying to convince us of anything or are you just posting for the sake of it.  If you want to convince people that what you're saying is true, you have to say why it is true.

Quote

Quote

Since we have evidence that indicates the universe exists, and no evidence that indicates it doesn't, we aren't taking it for granted.


The only evidence we have for the percieved universe is what we see hear touch and smell (and taste) but they are all PART OF THE UNIVERSE, and as such its circular reasoning to use it as evidence for the existance of the universe.


Put forward a theory that the universe doesn't exist and explain why we experience what we experience in the context of that theory.  The reason we should assume we exist is because the theory of our existence is the only theory that makes any sense given the evidence at hand.  The word "exist" also clearly refers to the context of inside the universe and within that context, even if we're actually butterflies dreaming we're people in another universe - we still exist as humans in the context of this one.  Science isn't about speculation, it's about what we can say based on the evidence that we have, and that evidence clearly points to the fact that we exist.  Until a better theory comes up, we will continue to believe that, and there is no reason to suppose a better theory will come up (getting into meta-science I suppose).  If you think there is a chance the universe doesn't exist, put forward an alternative theory, with as much evidence as you have and see how that stands up to the current theory.


Quote

Also, we have evidence to support the evidence that God exists, its just spurious, and there is no evidence to suppose God doesnt exist. We arnt taking God for granted,


It's impossible to have evidence in favour of a theory of absence.  What possible evidence could you have?  It is the lack of evidence for the existence that is the evidence for the non existence.  In fact a theory of absence is not even a theory - it is simply the negative result of a theory of existence.  You claim that God exists.  There is no evidence to support this theory, therefore there is no reason to believe it is true, therefore it is much more likely that the negative is true.  You claim that there is "spurious" evidence.  If that is the case then please feel free to tell us what that evidence is.

Assumptions
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2007, 03:18:46 PM »
First of all, sorry, i wasnt very clear with that last post of mine.

My point was that IF god exists, then things based on the assumption that he doesnt (for example marxism "religion is the opiate of the masses") would be mistaken. In the same way, we can do things based on the assumption that the universe exists, but if the universe doesnt these things are invalid.

And the theory im putting forward is that the world you are aware of is in fact the momentary collision of bodyless thoughts. Everything you remember is chance collision and never realy happened, "you" do not actually exists, and the thoughts will fall apart in a fraction of a second.
You "remember" that you have touched tasted felt and listened to things, but in fact havent.

And for the final point, the spurious evidence is "i wanted to pass a test, so i prayed to god, and then i did pass the test"


And Erasmus, i know its shaky. But if you try hard enough, pretty much everything is. Except glue.
ny Conspiricy without a secret society more than 1000 years old isn't worth thinking about