How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[snex]

you are being fed lies knight-errant. the modern city of tyre exists right next to the ruins of the old city, and the area of both has significant overlap.

furthermore, if you read the prophecy in its full context, it is clear that ezekiel is only talking about nebuchadnezzar. you even quoted it yourself! it clearly says "nebuchadnezzar." "many nations" would fully include an entire empire ruled by nebuchadnezzar.

and even if none of that were the case, tyre was a key trade city throughout the entire area. it had been attacked many times before and it was bound to be attacked again. controlling tyre meant controlling trade. it was attacked several times after alexander, the last of which was during the crusades iirc.

still, the city has CONTINUOUSLY existed, and that is completely opposite of what the prophecy says. if the prophecy fails on ANY single point, then it fails entirely. there is no room for error when youre claiming divine inspiration.

 

[yossarian22]

Okay, well then that definition of "infinite" is rather odd, and not at all how I've ever seen it. The set of Whole numbers is an infinite set... after all it contains an infinite amount of numbers.

But it is bound, so it is not infinite at all. That is contains an infinite number of numbers does not imply infinite at all. Mathematics has a very different definition of infinite from the norm. If I say that my hate for turtles is infinite, I am saying my hate knows no bounds. If I state that x is infinite, I mean that x has no bound

If Spinoza meant "must hold everything" by "infinite", then obviously there is only one such set: The set of everything. (Complement of the null set)

Spinoza is not saying 'must hold everything'. He is saying 'without bound'. That something without bound happens to contain everything is the point of his proof.

But that certainly doesn't need an elaborate proof, indeed it's quite obvious.

Philosophy is the art of proving the obvious.

If the universe is "infinite" in that regard, wouldn't that also mean it has an uncountably infinite number of time or space dimensions? If so that's a fairly bold posit.

He is stating that reality is without bound. That is a very important distinction.

Also I sense equivocation in the uses of "dependence" in rules 1 and 5B. The first seems to be in the sense of "reliance" or sustaining/deriving its existence whereas the second seems to be in the sense of having its properties being determined by parameters.

Spinoza himself writes a counter point to this, and I will admit to not having read the entire book (I am planning to order off of Amazon sometime or the other), so this may or may not be Spinoza's own view.

If I limit something, I must force the creation of a boundary at a certain point. At that point, said something does not exist.

Now, there are a variety of purely mechanistic counterpoints to this, but Spinoza specifically involves the mind in his proofs for a reason.

 

[AltF4]

... so... what was the point of the Spinoza proof again? It proves only that a boundless set will contain everything, and that there can be only one such set. How does that have any relevance to anything?

 

[yossarian22]

... so... what was the point of the Spinoza proof again? It proves only that a boundless set will contain everything, and that there can be only one such set. How does that have any relevance to anything?

For starters, it destroys Dualism without resorting to materialistic arguments. He is also the first to truly address dualism
Secondly, using reality was to make the proof more palatable. Spinoza uses the word substance, rather than reality, and uses it as the underlying essence of Nature, which he held was interchangeable with God.
It's the first argument for pantheism.
edit:
The traditional counter argument to this is that one has simply substituted God for Nature. Spinoza may have justified it somewhere, but I have never read it nor do I know where to find it.

This is not meant as a case of pantheism, but simply readdressing the OP.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

But it is bound, so it is not infinite at all. That is contains an infinite number of numbers does not imply infinite at all. Mathematics has a very different definition of infinite from the norm. If I say that my hate for turtles is infinite, I am saying my hate knows no bounds. If I state that x is infinite, I mean that x has no bound

It's not infinite in every way imaginable, but that doesn't mean it's not infinite. And I have never even heard another definition of "infinite" but the mathematical one aside from the colloquial usage you show.

He is stating that reality is without bound. That is a very important distinction.

Well what's "reality" then? And in what sense is it "unbounded?"

The traditional counter argument to this is that one has simply substituted God for Nature. Spinoza may have justified it somewhere, but I have never read it nor do I know where to find it.

Well I can't see what else it's doing but that, and I still see that as an empty statement; it's just saying the highest law in the universe is that of Nature, and then relabelling it "God," an atrocious misnomer. In fact that almost sounds like a DENIAL of "God in the supernatural sense."

 

[Knight-errant]

you are being fed lies knight-errant. the modern city of tyre exists right next to the ruins of the old city, and the area of both has significant overlap.

furthermore, if you read the prophecy in its full context, it is clear that ezekiel is only talking about nebuchadnezzar. you even quoted it yourself! it clearly says "nebuchadnezzar." "many nations" would fully include an entire empire ruled by nebuchadnezzar.

and even if none of that were the case, tyre was a key trade city throughout the entire area. it had been attacked many times before and it was bound to be attacked again. controlling tyre meant controlling trade. it was attacked several times after alexander, the last of which was during the crusades iirc.

still, the city has CONTINUOUSLY existed, and that is completely opposite of what the prophecy says. if the prophecy fails on ANY single point, then it fails entirely. there is no room for error when youre claiming divine inspiration.

You're both sourceless and incorrect. I'll give you the information on the city, and I'll do it with sources as well.

But first off, let's address your problem with thinking that this prophecy refers only to Nebuchadnezzar. First of all, you seem to think that "many nations would fully include an entire empire ruled by Nebuchadnezzar." Ok, first of all, let's discuss numbers. Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler of Babylon: one nation. If the one nation of Babylon suddenly means many nations I'll eat my guitar. Let's break it down:

The prophecy says.
1. Many nations shall come against Tyre
2. It then goes specifically into one of these nations: Babylon, which was ruled by Nebuchadnezzar. This specific part goes from verses 7 through 11. You'll notice in these verses it refers specifically to him (Nebuchadnezzar) and not they.
3. Starting in verse 12, the focus shifts away from Nebuchadnezzar and back on to all the other nations. Notice instead of saying "him" it says "they."

To summarize, the prophecy speaks of many nations in general, and at one point talks specifically about Nebuchadnezzar, and then goes back to talking about the many nations. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon comprises one and only one nation. Obviously the prophecy shifts to referring to the others in verse 12.

Ok, now let's talk about whether or not Tyre was actually destroyed completely. Well, first you have to understand that there was not one, but two Tyres: the mainland city, and then later the island city. You'll notice much of this prophecy refers to the mainland city ("make you a bear rock" etc). While it is true that a city exists on the island, this is not a "rebuilt" Tyre, and has no connection to the prophecy besides it's location. The bulk of the prophecy is speaking about the mainland city anyways, which has been destroyed.

So when it says:

Eze 26:19 "For thus says the Lord GOD: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you,
Eze 26:21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more. Though you be sought for, you will never be found again, declares the Lord GOD."

It's talking about the mainland city. And you know what? The Ancient city of Tyre has never been rebuilt. In AD 1170 A Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels: here is an excerpt:

A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea.

And in another writing we have:

“Later this town was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline brought about by the **** and the alluvial deposits that changed Tyre into a peninsula”

As you can see from both of these quotes, the ancient city of tyre lies in the sea, and can never be rebuilt. The site itself is underneath water. The city has been completely destroyed and become bare, just as the bible prophesied.

Tyre has not continuously existed: it was destroyed completely by several nations, and in the end wiped completely and literally bare by Alexander the Great. That site is now covered by the sea, and the city has not and will not ever be rebuilt.

 

[AltF4]

For starters, it destroys Dualism without resorting to materialistic arguments. He is also the first to truly address dualism
Secondly, using reality was to make the proof more palatable. Spinoza uses the word substance, rather than reality, and uses it as the underlying essence of Nature, which he held was interchangeable with God.
It's the first argument for pantheism.
edit:
The traditional counter argument to this is that one has simply substituted God for Nature. Spinoza may have justified it somewhere, but I have never read it nor do I know where to find it.

This is not meant as a case of pantheism, but simply readdressing the OP.

It does not destroy dualism, it does not do much of anything. All we've done is say that there is one "boundless set" and then call that reality. Well, then according to dualism the world of minds would just be included under that definition of "reality". It's just an abuse of terminology.

Furthermore, I'd like to know exactly what is meant by "boundless". Is the set of all real numbers "boundless" according to your definition? (By the way, I am growing tired of these debates devolving into semantic redefining of previously well-understood terms) It contains an infinite amount of numbers, continues infinitely in both directions, and contains every number along the way. Strictly speaking it has no "bound", but I suspect philosophers have a different definition for this word too.

 

[snex]

You're both sourceless and incorrect. I'll give you the information on the city, and I'll do it with sources as well.

But first off, let's address your problem with thinking that this prophecy refers only to Nebuchadnezzar. First of all, you seem to think that "many nations would fully include an entire empire ruled by Nebuchadnezzar." Ok, first of all, let's discuss numbers. Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler of Babylon: one nation. If the one nation of Babylon suddenly means many nations I'll eat my guitar. Let's break it down:

babylon was an *empire* meaning it controlled *many* nations.

The prophecy says.
1. Many nations shall come against Tyre
2. It then goes specifically into one of these nations: Babylon, which was ruled by Nebuchadnezzar. This specific part goes from verses 7 through 11. You'll notice in these verses it refers specifically to him (Nebuchadnezzar) and not they.
3. Starting in verse 12, the focus shifts away from Nebuchadnezzar and back on to all the other nations. Notice instead of saying "him" it says "they."

it says that in english, but does it say that in the original hebrew? the original hebrew can also be translated as "great nation" instead of "many nations." and the original hebrew doesnt even have pronouns like "he" and "they" in ezekiel, so those are ALL translated into english, long after the events happened!

To summarize, the prophecy speaks of many nations in general, and at one point talks specifically about Nebuchadnezzar, and then goes back to talking about the many nations. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon comprises one and only one nation. Obviously the prophecy shifts to referring to the others in verse 12.

the prophecy does no such thing. the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the prophecy does this, and that translation came centuries after the events in question unfolded.

and if you really think thats the correct translation, just read it. it doesnt make any sense. you would never write a narrative that switches focus twice in that manner.

Ok, now let's talk about whether or not Tyre was actually destroyed completely. Well, first you have to understand that there was not one, but two Tyres: the mainland city, and then later the island city. You'll notice much of this prophecy refers to the mainland city ("make you a bear rock" etc). While it is true that a city exists on the island, this is not a "rebuilt" Tyre, and has no connection to the prophecy besides it's location. The bulk of the prophecy is speaking about the mainland city anyways, which has been destroyed.

there was not "two tyres." the island city was always tyre, and the mainland was a suburb of tyre called ushu.

It's talking about the mainland city. And you know what? The Ancient city of Tyre has never been rebuilt. In AD 1170 A Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels: here is an excerpt:

of course the ancient city has never been rebuilt.. it was just built over by the people that lived there. why would they rebuild ancient structures when alexander brought advances in architecture? they just built the new structures right over the old ones. this is like claiming the ancient city of rome was never rebuilt... well DUH! that doesnt mean rome has not continuously existed for 2000 years.

And in another writing we have:

As you can see from both of these quotes, the ancient city of tyre lies in the sea, and can never be rebuilt. The site itself is underneath water. The city has been completely destroyed and become bare, just as the bible prophesied.

this is completely false. parts of the ancient city are underwater but there are still ruins right on the outskirts of the modern city that you can go see yourself. there are pictures of them all over the web, if only you had bothered to look. there are also ruins UNDER the modern city that were built over.

Tyre has not continuously existed: it was destroyed completely by several nations, and in the end wiped completely and literally bare by Alexander the Great. That site is now covered by the sea, and the city has not and will not ever be rebuilt.

tyre was not completely destroyed by anyone. nebuchadnezzar failed to take it and alexander the great did not go around utterly destroying cities. he took them over and let them continue to live - the same thing he did to tyre. the city was never completely destroyed, and you could verify this with a simple read of an encyclopedia instead of some nutcase apoligist website.

i also notice you failed to address the point that tyre was a key trade city and was bound to be attacked by "many nations" in any case. you didnt need magical powers to know this in the ancient world.

 

[blazedaces]

While I never actually went about doing this I did always want to try and read the Torah (I'm fluent in hebrew) while reading a popular bible (at least the old testament, though I planned on reading the rest)... I just never got around to it.

I also wanted to compare an english translation of the torah (one they have in synagogues) to an english bible and see how off are the translations. I mean, translations of cedars at passover (I notice this whenever we attend cedar at a guests home or have guests over who are not fluent in hebrew) have quite a few differences as is. Translations in general are not an easy task to begin with and that's when the translator is completely impartial and wants to keep as much intact as possible.

An example would be something to similar to what snex pointed out. I recall just this past cedar there were two different cedar readings, one which said "the great hand of god..." and one which said "the massive hand of god..." If you think about it though these have very similar meanings...

And I believe in a cedar reading different translators aren't competing for a different variation or view of the history...

Just an interesting point I guess.

-blazed

 

[yossarian22]

It's not infinite in every way imaginable, but that doesn't mean it's not infinite. And I have never even heard another definition of "infinite" but the mathematical one aside from the colloquial usage you show.

You read much philosophy? I have never seen infinite referred to in philosophy in a mathematical sense.

Well what's "reality" then? And in what sense is it "unbounded?"Well I can't see what else it's doing but that, and I still see that as an empty statement; it's just saying the highest law in the universe is that of Nature, and then relabelling it "God," an atrocious misnomer. In fact that almost sounds like a DENIAL of "God in the supernatural sense."

It is a total denial of God in the supernatural sense. That is why Spinozists (Spinozaists? Spinoists?) were considered atheists. Spinoza is a Platonist.

It does not destroy dualism, it does not do much of anything. All we've done is say that there is one "boundless set" and then call that reality.

In essence, yes. It says that there is one reality.

Well, then according to dualism the world of minds would just be included under that definition of "reality". It's just an abuse of terminology.

Dualism forces us to accept Mind and Body as two mutually exclusive distinct entities. There is the physical, then there is the mental. Spinoza says that there can only be one. (This whole line of statemens may or may not have been building up to a Highlander reference)

Furthermore, I'd like to know exactly what is meant by "boundless". Is the set of all real numbers "boundless" according to your definition?

Nope.
√-1 exists as a construct.

(By the way, I am growing tired of these debates devolving into semantic redefining of previously well-understood terms) It contains an infinite amount of numbers, continues infinitely in both directions, and contains every number along the way. Strictly speaking it has no "bound", but I suspect philosophers have a different definition for this word too.

If you dislike redefinitions, I suggest you stop trying to force an argument to address an entirely different context.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I don't get what the point of saying "there is only one reality" is. You can easily just redefine "reality" to include everything, in the same way that "universe" could be used to mean the collection of all universe if ours is just a member of a multiverse. I think what you really mean is that there aren't two -disjoint- realities.

In any case...when can we expect an unambiguous defintion of "infinite," "unbounded," "reality," etc? I definitely echo AltF4's sentiments; mathematics has a rigorous and discipline-wide accepted definition of such things that can be easily referred to and quoted. It is frustrating to deal with redefinitions at philosophers' whims.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I don't get what the point of saying "there is only one reality" is. You can easily just redefine "reality" to include everything, in the same way that "universe" could be used to mean the collection of all universe is ours is just a member of a multiverse. I think what you really mean is that there aren't two -disjoint- realities.

In any case...when can we expected an unambiguous defintion of "infinite," "unbounded," "reality,"? I definitely echo AltF4's sentiments; mathematics has a rigorous and discipline-wide accepted definition of such things that can be easily referred to and quoted. It is frustrating to deal with redefinitions at philosophers' whims.

I think the entire issue with using the rigourous mathamatical definitions is when the discussion is as immersed in complex philosophical concepts, the mathamatical meanings quite simply are insufficent to get across the concepts which the philosophers are attempting to explain.

Granted, I think that said philosophers should use their own words.

However, when a person explains that they do not mean what you thought they meant, even if they are misusing words, it's pointless to debate them on that point except as an irrelevant tangent. The reason is quite simple, what you thought was their argument is a mere miscommunication and their real argument is quite different. By debating the argument that you thought they were making, you debate nobody, and correcting the definition obviously doesn't change their viewpoint on the issue.

In essence, it's just an accidental straw man fallacy.

Now that a disconnect between the meaning of the words used has been recognized, the question should not be "what do the words mean"? It should be "what was he/she/it attempting to argue"?

 

[yossarian22]

I don't get what the point of saying "there is only one reality" is. You can easily just redefine "reality" to include everything, in the same way that "universe" could be used to mean the collection of all universe if ours is just a member of a multiverse. I think what you really mean is that there aren't two -disjoint- realities.

That is what I meant.
Ugh... I think I will stop phrasing arguments in a philosophical context. People seem insistent on dragging an entire argument out of context in an attempt to formulate an argument against it

In any case...when can we expect an unambiguous defintion of "infinite," "unbounded," "reality," etc?

From philosophy?
Quite possibly never. And I fail to see where my flavor of infinite is unambiguous. Take it literally.
Not finite (in qualities, etc)
I am sure that there is some philosopher who would wring his hands at this definition, but for the purposes of this discussion, it works quite well. I am not going to spell out every corollary that comes from being finite. I feel that they are self evident.

Stop thinking of it mathematically. Math is great, but shoehorning it into an argument on purely semantical issues is disingenuous and accomplishes nothing.

I definitely echo AltF4's sentiments; mathematics has a rigorous and discipline-wide accepted definition of such things that can be easily referred to and quoted. It is frustrating to deal with redefinitions at philosophers' whims.

Well, philosophers tend to view it in the opposite way.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

That is what I meant.
Ugh... I think I will stop phrasing arguments in a philosophical context. People seem insistent on dragging an entire argument out of context in an attempt to formulate an argument against it

A "philosophical context" isn't really even a well-defined thing to begin with. To me it just sounds like an excuse not to be rigorous with definitions. No offense.

From philosophy?
Quite possibly never. And I fail to see where my flavor of infinite is unambiguous. Take it literally.
Not finite (in qualities, etc)
I am sure that there is some philosopher who would wring his hands at this definition, but for the purposes of this discussion, it works quite well. I am not going to spell out every corollary that comes from being finite. I feel that they are self evident.

They aren't really self-evident. If you say the real are "not infinite" because they don't include complex numbers, then the universe must have an infinite number of spatial or temporal dimensions. When you say it's "not finite" all that I can really get out of it is that you're saying it "lacks nothing," which still doesn't really say what you mean. Does it not lack a pink invisible unicorn or flying spaghetti monster or a god? Otherwise it is bounded in its "god-having-ness." The universe also seems to evolve according to very well defined parameters (things like the fine structure constant, or the cosmological constant, etc), which also seems to be a "bound" to me. I'm sure it's really obvious to YOU what you mean but it's completely NOT to us.

Stop thinking of it mathematically. Math is great, but shoehorning it into an argument on purely semantical issues is disingenuous and accomplishes nothing.

We're not doing it just "because it's math" or for math's sake because we're elitist jerks who demand math rules in every discussion, but it's because it's a very well-defined concept. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but if you don't give a well-defined meaning to concepts like "infinite" from the beginning then you're just asking for trouble.

Well, philosophers tend to view it in the opposite way.

What does that mean? That they aren't frustrated by redefining things as it suits them? Yeah it must be great not to have an agreed upon meaning for a word.

Anyway I don't see where this line of questioning is leading. We haven't even gotten to showing Spinoza's system is meaningful or even self-consistent, let alone the validity of his axioms.

 

[yossarian22]

A "philosophical context" isn't really even a well-defined thing to begin with. To me it just sounds like an excuse not to be rigorous with definitions. No offense.

None taken, but by your standards, any context is an excuse to not be rigorous. That is the point of a contextual discussion. I could consider the mathematical context of infinity to be an idiotic definition. Different uses.

They aren't really self-evident. If you say the real are "not infinite" because they don't include complex numbers, then the universe must have an infinite number of spatial or temporal dimensions. When you say it's "not finite" all that I can really get out of it is that you're saying it "lacks nothing,"

Again, Spinoza's reality is not defined purely by the material.

We're not doing it just "because it's math" or for math's sake because we're elitist jerks who demand math rules in every discussion, but it's because it's a very well-defined concept. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but if you don't give a well-defined meaning to concepts like "infinite" from the beginning then you're just asking for trouble.

I did not figure that anybody would be obtuse enough to consider my use of the word infinite to be in the mathematical sense. This definition is rigorous enough for a typical discussion on philosophy (which any discussion of theism is inevitably about)

What does that mean? That they aren't frustrated by redefining things as it suits them? Yeah it must be great not to have an agreed upon meaning for a word.

Blowing what I said out of proportion. There is no single definition that can work for every field in philosophy. There are some that are rigorous enough, and those you can catch in a dictionary.

Anyway I don't see where this line of questioning is leading. We haven't even gotten to showing Spinoza's system is meaningful or even self-consistent, let alone the validity of his axioms.

Basically to show that every religion that rolls along is the same case of inane process theism and that it is possible to create an epistemologically valid theistic argument.
If you don't disagree with that, then I am basically accomplishing nothing and will stop.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

None taken, but by your standards, any context is an excuse to not be rigorous. That is the point of a contextual discussion. I could consider the mathematical context of infinity to be an idiotic definition. Different uses.

Whether it's idiotic or not is irrelevant because at least it's RIGOROUS unlike anything you've presented so far.

This definition is rigorous enough for a typical discussion on philosophy (which any discussion of theism is inevitably about)

I still have NO IDEA what you are saying. You just say infinite means not finite which doesn't tell me anything because you don't say what finite means. It's like if I told you something was "nonrenormalizable" and then expected you to understand what that meant by just telling you that nonrenormalizable means "not renormalizable." In particular what's wrong with the counterexamples I presented? But ultimately, I don't want examples. I want a rule whereby I can look at an object and determine whether it is finite or infinite.

There are some that are rigorous enough, and those you can catch in a dictionary.

The only ones I find in the dictionary are the mathematical ones and the colloquial ones. Please stop giving us the runaround. I ask you for a rigorous definition every time and still nothing.

 

[yossarian22]

Whether it's idiotic or not is irrelevant because at least it's RIGOROUS unlike anything you've presented so far.

Reread what you just said.
"It does not matter that this definition is utterly inapplicable, but it is consistent and therefore should be used"
And is nowhere near rigorous. Let's take your nice little set theory of infinity and stick in a philosophical viewpoint. Ludwig Wittgenstein phrases it much better than I can, although in an admittedly... tactless way.

"Does the relation m = 2n correlate the class of all numbers with one of its subclasses? No. It correlates any arbitrary number with another, and in that way we arrive at infinitely many pairs of classes, of which one is correlated with the other, but which are never related as class and subclass. Neither is this infinite process itself in some sense or other such a pair of classes... In the superstition that m = 2n correlates a class with its subclass, we merely have yet another case of ambiguous grammar."

I still have NO IDEA what you are saying. You just say infinite means not finite which doesn't tell me anything because you don't say what finite means. It's like if I told you something was "nonrenormalizable" and then expected you to understand what that meant by just telling you that nonrenormalizable means "not renormalizable." In particular what's wrong with the counterexamples I presented? But ultimately, I don't want examples. I want a rule whereby I can look at an object and determine whether it is finite or infinite.

Is "Not bounded in qualities" rigorous enough, or shall I define qualities for you?

The only ones I find in the dictionary are the mathematical ones and the colloquial ones. Please stop giving us the runaround. I ask you for a rigorous definition every time and still nothing.

Literally, unboundedness. Not limited in qualities. This is rigorous enough for this discussion. "What is infinity" is a term paper topic. We do not need such a precise notion for this low level debate.

And I'll ask again, do you disagree with this statement?
It is possible to create an epistemologically valid theistic argument.
If not, I do not see any point in continuing this other than to argue whether or not Spinozism (Spinozist? Spinozaosm? there has to be some word for it) is valid or not.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Reread what you just said.
"It does not matter that this definition is utterly inapplicable, but it is consistent and therefore should be used"
And is nowhere near rigorous.

I never defined "my infinity" I always just invoked the mathematical one which IS rigorous. I took "idiotic" to mean your personal distaste with it, not its "inapplicability," so that's not actually what I said anyway.

"Does the relation m = 2n correlate the class of all numbers with one of its subclasses? No. It correlates any arbitrary number with another, and in that way we arrive at infinitely many pairs of classes, of which one is correlated with the other, but which are never related as class and subclass. Neither is this infinite process itself in some sense or other such a pair of classes... In the superstition that m = 2n correlates a class with its subclass, we merely have yet another case of ambiguous grammar."

Well a mathematical discussion would require a definition of "class," "subclass," "correlation," etc. So I'm not really 100% sure what he is saying. The first thing that I think of is that he says they "are never related as class and subclass" but they are, it's a map from the reals to the reals. Proof: Given any number m (of course I'm assuming the reals are meant here [though the rationals would suffice too]), you can always find m/2, which means for any m, there is an n in the same set, and vice versa. Thus the domain and the image sets or "classes" or whatever are identical.

The other thing that it sounds like he could be saying is that "m = 2n" is a map from reals to reals, but it's not a map from "a set which has the set of reals as an element" to "another set of sets" I.e. it's a map from reals to reals, not sets to sets, and in that sense the "sets are uncorrelated." But then I don't see anything profound about that.

Is "Not bounded in qualities" rigorous enough, or shall I define qualities for you?

Yes you should. Does this mean for example that in the quality of "apple-having-ness" it is infinite i.e. it has an infinite number of apples? If that is true then the existence of one thing, or set of things, implies that there are infinite of them, so there are infinite number of solar systems that are exactly like this one and an infinite number of identical copies of people having this very conversation right now. And what about things that ostensibly must take a UNIQUE value, like things that define the universe, like parameters such as the fine-structure constant or the cosmological constant? If they take a unique value anywhere or anytime, then isn't the universe bounded in "parameter space"? And if they don't take a unique value anywhere, then wouldn't the universe just evolve in a completely nonsensical matter devoid of any "laws of physics?"

And I'll ask again, do you disagree with this statement? It is possible to create an epistemologically valid theistic argument.

Of course, but something can be "epistemologically valid" and completely untestable and unfalsifiable at the same time, right? Such things are useless aside from being mere curios of philosophy. We can't even ascribe some kind of "degree of belief" to them because it would simply be invoking prejudices of the way we perceive the world; we would have NO way to get ANY kind of data about it at all. The only real way around it that I can conceive of is like I said to simply relabel "the laws of nature" as "God," no more and no less. Surely you agree that this is a cop-out.

 

[yossarian22]

I never defined "my infinity" I always just invoked the mathematical one which IS rigorous. I took "idiotic" to mean your personal distaste with it, not its "inapplicability," so that's not actually what I said anyway.

fair enough

Well a mathematical discussion would require a definition of "class," "subclass," "correlation," etc. So I'm not really 100% sure what he is saying.

He is using the set theory definitions I assume.

But then I don't see anything profound about that.

I brought it up as a slightly irrelevant tangent. The point was to bold highlight that any word ceases to be rigorous when I throw it in a new context

Yes you should.

Quality: an indistinguishable attribute. The circular nature of language is rearing its ugly head now. Would you like me to continue defining every term I use?

Does this mean for example that in the quality of "apple-having-ness" it is infinite i.e. it has an infinite number of apples?

Yes, but bridge the gap from the physical to the mental. As we have no way of distinguishing the two (hell, the former could be a mere illusion brought about by the latter), they effectively become one in the same.

Of course, but something can be "epistemologically valid" and completely untestable and unfalsifiable at the same time, right? Such things are useless aside from being mere curios of philosophy.

It is not useless at all. Unless you consider induction (and thereby the whole field of Science) useless.

Surely you agree that this is a cop-out.

I do. Others do not.

 

[RDK]

The problem with the line of reasoning Yoss mentioned is that you can formulate a decent theory based on speculations and fairly valid possibilities, but outside the theory itself, there's no reason to think that the theory would actually be true or hold any water in reality (I.E., the theory of a "Creator").

This is the problem with religion. Instead of pursuing relevant truths using the scientific method, they start with their theory and build on that using "what-if" logic that could certainly be true, but has no evidence to prove or disprove it. It's ultimately useless as anything but a speculative throwback.

 

[yossarian22]

The problem with the line of reasoning Yoss mentioned is that you can formulate a decent theory based on speculations and fairly valid possibilities, but outside the theory itself, there's no reason to think that the theory would actually be true or hold any water in reality (I.E., the theory of a "Creator").

This is the problem with religion. Instead of pursuing relevant truths using the scientific method, they start with their theory and build on that using "what-if" logic that could certainly be true, but has no evidence to prove or disprove it. It's ultimately useless as anything but a speculative throwback.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you have implicitly stated that the scientific method is the way to that elusive concept we call "truth". Science commits does the exact same thing you are complaining about. Why should I consider induction truth? Science arose from the very same methodology you do not consider valid. Now, no system has been quite as effective as science has been, but whatever replaces the scientific method (if anything does replace the scientific method) will likely be created through the same processes.

 

[AltF4]

Well, then I say you have a perverted definition of "reality" or "existence". If we include "existence" to include stuff that is only conceptual, then yes, of course EVERYTHING is inside this set. Thus there can only be one this set.

Even things like round squares (ooooo, I took PHI 101 too!) would be in that version of the set of "reality". But this i not the reality that most people refer to when they speak of the term. For something to exist and be a part of reality, it must be made of matter. It must have a mass.

"Fun" does not exist in the same way that a pencil does. It's only an unfortunate quality of the English language that causes us to say things like "ideas exist".

A dualist holds the position that there is a world of matter, (what we usually call "Reality") and some other mysterious world of minds which somehow interacts with the physical world. Spinoza's argument essentially defines reality in such a way that it encompasses BOTH worlds, and then claims that there is only one of those sets. Well, duh. And that is not an effective argument against anything.

I reject dualism on other grounds, but I won't let a bad argument go if I see it, lol.

Somehow I doubt something so glaringly, obviously wrong could have gone by so many scholars. There must be some aspect (or likely some term yet still poorly defined) that is causing some kind of miscommunication here.

 

[yossarian22]

Well, then I say you have a perverted definition of "reality" or "existence". If we include "existence" to include stuff that is only conceptual, then yes, of course EVERYTHING is inside this set.

Epistemologically, yes.

Even things like round squares (ooooo, I took PHI 101 too!) would be in that version of the set of "reality". But this i not the reality that most people refer to when they speak of the term. For something to exist and be a part of reality, it must be made of matter. It must have a mass.

I have said this at least half a dozen times.

I do not need to accept the materialistic world view.

"Fun" does not exist in the same way that a pencil does. It's only an unfortunate quality of the English language that causes us to say things like "ideas exist".

And language is an unfortunate quality of abstraction.

Spinoza's argument essentially defines reality in such a way that it encompasses BOTH worlds, and then claims that there is only one of those sets. Well, duh. And that is not an effective argument against anything.

For starters, it was never meant to attack dualism, although I can see from how I worded my posts that it could be construed as such. How about "non process theology without dualism".

Somehow I doubt something so glaringly, obviously wrong could have gone by so many scholars. There must be some aspect (or likely some term yet still poorly defined) that is causing some kind of miscommunication here.

Probably.
My knowledge of Spinoza is more than a little rusty. I am going off of a set of notes I hasty wrote down sometime or the other.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Quality: an indistinguishable attribute. The circular nature of language is rearing its ugly head now. Would you like me to continue defining every term I use?

Well if you're just going to criticize ME for fallacies of context and then just pull out dictionary definitions yourself, why should I even bother talking to you; it just seems like you're deliberately being difficult or glib about it. I don't think my requests for definitions are unreasonable at all.

The reason I ask in the first place is that for some things that could be regarded as "qualities" it simply doesn't make sense to speak of them being finite or infinite or "bounded". Specifically things like parameters of the universe. Seems to me like the fact that anything exists is a bound because then the universe is in a definite state, which is a limit on the quality of being in some other state. I don't even know if this MAKES SENSE because the definition of "bounded" in this context can't stand up for itself.

It is not useless at all. Unless you consider induction (and thereby the whole field of Science) useless.

There is nothing scientific that is unfalsifiable based on its own (science's) axioms. Or else it wouldn't BE scientific. The universe being infinite (whatever that is) like Spinoza says is certainly an axiom that exceeds anything science posits in terms of what we are asked to take for granted.

 

[yossarian22]

Well if you're just going to criticize ME for fallacies of context and then just pull out dictionary definitions yourself, why should I even bother talking to you; it just seems like you're deliberately being difficult or glib about it. I don't think my requests for definitions are unreasonable at all.

Sorry if I got annoyed by the demand for definitions.
And it seems I have to keep repeating myself. I cannot think of a better way of phrasing it then I already have

There is nothing scientific that is unfalsifiable based on its own (science's) axioms.

That is the definition of circular. Science is correct because science says so.

Or else it wouldn't BE scientific. The universe being infinite (whatever that is) like Spinoza says is certainly an axiom that exceeds anything science posits in terms of what we are asked to take for granted.

There is no threshold for believability. Any claim requires support. Science demands that we take "first X then why" to "if X then Y". Considering you can only attack other claims by accepting the validity of this one, this argument becomes remarkably weak.

 

[RDK]

That is the definition of circular. Science is correct because science says so.

There is no threshold for believability. Any claim requires support. Science demands that we take "first X then why" to "if X then Y". Considering you can only attack other claims by accepting the validity of this one, this argument becomes remarkably weak.

So what do you suggest we do? Base our actions and endeavors around things that we know could possibly be true, but have absolutely no empircal evidence for? Oh wait, there's already something like that. I believe it's called "Creationism".

 

[blazedaces]

There is no threshold for believability. Any claim requires support. Science demands that we take "first X then why" to "if X then Y". Considering you can only attack other claims by accepting the validity of this one, this argument becomes remarkably weak.

Are you suggesting that because we can't prove to absolute certainty that when an action B follows A that A necessarily caused B?

This is what Hume suggests. But he and you both think too much in terms of black and white. You assume that either we can know something or we can't. You ignore the fact that while we can't know much to absolute certainty we can certainly know the probability that B will follow A.

And that my friend, is the beauty of science. As Alt4 once explained, science does not prove anything to be true, it can only show that we won't reject its postulations as true (to a high degree of certainty).

-blazed

 

[yossarian22]

So what do you suggest we do? Base our actions and endeavors around things that we know could possibly be true, but have absolutely no empircal evidence for? Oh wait, there's already something like that. I believe it's called "Creationism".

So, false dichotomies aside...

Are you suggesting that because we can't prove to absolute certainty that when an action B follows A that A necessarily caused B?

This is what Hume suggests. But he and you both think too much in terms of black and white. You assume that either we can know something or we can't.

Truth is necessarily black and white. It is either true, or it is not true. There can be no middle ground. I am not even sure if relative truth is a coherent concept.

You ignore the fact that while we can't know much to absolute certainty we can certainly know the probability that B will follow A.

We don't even know the probability, which requires empirical evidence (yet another wall for science). All we have is a set of observations that say "First A, followed by B". We can do this as many times as we like. Is "A therefore B" a valid conclusion?

This is not attack against science based on its inability to attain 100% certainty. Is the notion of induction (and by extension, causality) verifiable? Not in the slightest. Science therefore fails its own test. We cannot verify it. Now, it has undoubtedly benefited man far more than any other method for acquiring knowledge, but that is besides the point I was trying to make.

 

[RDK]

Okay, you made your point. Great. But the question still stands--what do you suggest that would be better than science? Random guesswork? It just doesn't work that way. Your argument is circular and has absolutely no point other than to state that "science fails its own test". Ultimately, what can you do about that?

Science is the observation of the world around you. Accepting casuality, we make decisions and label what is "knowledge" based on what we garner from scientific studies. Religion is a poor substitute for science.

 

[yossarian22]

Okay, you made your point. Great. But the question still stands--what do you suggest that would be better than science?

No clue. I personally doubt that there is a better system.

Science is the observation of the world around you. Accepting casuality, we make decisions and label what is "knowledge" based on what we garner from scientific studies. Religion is a poor substitute for science.

I never stated that religion should substitute science. Ever.

 

[blazedaces]

Truth is necessarily black and white. It is either true, or it is not true. There can be no middle ground. I am not even sure if relative truth is a coherent concept.

No, relative truth is not a coherent concept. Truth is boolean by nature. Still, you're trying to equate our knowledge of the world with only specific true statements. Like, the following can be a true statement: 9999999999/10000000000 B follows A.

Furthermore saying something is true 99% of the time is not the same as saying I am 99% certain that it is true (the first is not possible as you pointed out, but the second is perfectly plausible).

Along your line of reasoning the entire idea of statistics can not exist...

We don't even know the probability, which requires empirical evidence (yet another wall for science).

How is this a wall for science? If we believe in the scientific method we can't observe the world around us?! *confused* <--- I assume this is not what you mean. Care to explain it?

All we have is a set of observations that say "First A, followed by B". We can do this as many times as we like. Is "A therefore B" a valid conclusion?

No, it's not a valid conclusion. But we're perfectly capable of saying we know absolutely that 9999999999/10000000000 B follows A. We're more interested in working with what we can say rather then what we can't say.

This is not attack against science based on its inability to attain 100% certainty. Is the notion of induction (and by extension, causality) verifiable? Not in the slightest. Science therefore fails its own test. We cannot verify it. Now, it has undoubtedly benefited man far more than any other method for acquiring knowledge, but that is besides the point I was trying to make.

You're sort of contradicting yourself (sort of, bear with me here). You say "
This is not attack against science based on its inability to attain 100% certainty." Then you go on to attack induction and causality, but induction is a line of reasoning which "supports" its conclusions, but does not ensure its truth (again, probability comes to mind, a conclusion with a whole lot of support is more likely (or should I say our certainty of it is more likely) true then a conclusion which has no support or support against it even).

And causality is a self-evident truth. We're not debating whether causality is true or false, whether some A definitely caused some B. We're debating if we can prove a particular A caused a particular B that we have identified.

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

Gah, so much to respond to in this thread.

I'll get to it, eventually...

No, relative truth is not a coherent concept. Truth is boolean by nature. Still, you're trying to equate our knowledge of the world with only specific true statements. Like, the following can be a true statement: 9999999999/10000000000 B follows A.

Furthermore saying something is true 99% of the time is not the same as saying I am 99% certain that it is true (the first is not possible as you pointed out, but the second is perfectly plausible).

Along your line of reasoning the entire idea of statistics can not exist...


How is this a wall for science? If we believe in the scientific method we can't observe the world around us?! *confused* <--- I assume this is not what you mean. Care to explain it?

No, it's not a valid conclusion. But we're perfectly capable of saying we know absolutely that 9999999999/10000000000 B follows A. We're more interested in working with what we can say rather then what we can't say.


You're sort of contradicting yourself (sort of, bear with me here). You say "
This is not attack against science based on its inability to attain 100% certainty." Then you go on to attack induction and causality, but induction is a line of reasoning which "supports" its conclusions, but does not ensure its truth (again, probability comes to mind, a conclusion with a whole lot of support is more likely (or should I say our certainty of it is more likely) true then a conclusion which has no support or support against it even).

And causality is a self-evident truth. We're not debating whether causality is true or false, whether some A definitely caused some B. We're debating if we can prove a particular A caused a particular B that we have identified.

-blazed

I don't think you understand his issue with induction.

Induction is inherently non-rigorous, by it's very nature it cannot account for the infinite potential non-observed phenomenon.

Your 9999999999/10000000000 times B follows A cannot, by it's very nature account for the 10000000000000000000000 times B did not follow A that you have not observed.

Yes, this does dispute the validity of statistics, but there's a reason why induction is not used in mathematics (the reasoning type, mathematical induction is actually a form of deduction), it cannot prove "for all", it just proves "for the sample".


The philosophy behind science however, is built to account for this issue.

The simple fact is that science does not hold that anything is absolutely proven, the theoretical underpinning of science is the idea of disproving the null hypothesis.

The null is simply "nothing" (whatever "nothing" is relevant, ex all swans are no color), which is in turn replaced by another null hypothesis when a contradiction is observed. That is in turn replaced by another null when a new contradiction is observed.

Take for instance, the statement "all swans are white". It was created inductively when somebody observed swans and only found white ones. Thus the conclusion was that all swans were white which became the null hypothesis.

However, this null was disproved when somebody discovered a black swan. Thus the null was rejected a new null hypothesis was created, "all swans are white or black". If a yellow swan is discovered then the same thing will happen once again.




This is the only was induction can be rigorous, infinite observations. If one observes all possible cases then induction becomes rigorous and therefore valid. Of course, that will never occur, so the net effect is that science is gradually moving closer to the truth by gradually rejecting null as new data contradicts it.


Understand? To deal with the problem of induction being non-valid, science rejected the idea of having the absolute truth in a finite time frame. That's why there are no more "laws of science", ANYTHING can be rejected. Like the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter were rejected.




PS. Statistics is included in this.

No clue. I personally doubt that there is a better system.

Great commentary on the flaws of science!

The problem is that you are a couple of decades out of date.


The scientific method uses empirical falsification, which is ultimately induction, is it's only rigorous form. It recognizes that induction for any finite number of tests is inherently invalid and therefore continuously looks to reject previous inductive conclusions with new evidence, Ultimately this provides infinite tests which result in induction being rigorous.

Of course, since infinite tests are ultimately impossible over a finite timeframe, this means that science recognizes that any and all of it's conclusions are ALWAYS open to being rejected due to new evidence.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

I don't want to say this to offend God, but here it goes.

Religion was established to keep order, or law. The bible even shows examples of punishments and rewards. There's not much more else to add, really.

 

[yossarian22]

Great commentary on the flaws of science!

The problem is that you are a couple of decades out of date.

The scientific method uses empirical falsification, which is ultimately induction, is it's only rigorous form. It recognizes that induction for any finite number of tests is inherently invalid and therefore continuously looks to reject previous inductive conclusions with new evidence, Ultimately this provides infinite tests which result in induction being rigorous.

Of course, since infinite tests are ultimately impossible over a finite timeframe, this means that science recognizes that any and all of it's conclusions are ALWAYS open to being rejected due to new evidence.

This is Karl Popper right? So about 60~ years out of date.

Anyhow, your argument is solid, and I know it. I knew that there was a counterargument when I posted it. I mentioned this primarily to show that science cannot differentiate between science and not science-- depending on your viewpoint, this means truth or not truth-- based on falsifiability alone.

Even this might be weak. I have been a bit busy as of recently.

Weird how this topic bounces around on various odd tangents

 

[adumbrodeus]

Anyhow, your argument is solid, and I know it. I knew that there was a counterargument when I posted it. I mentioned this primarily to show that science cannot differentiate between science and not science-- depending on your viewpoint, this means truth or not truth-- based on falsifiability alone.

You understand this I think, but let me reiterate, science can distinguish between science and non-science based on falsifiability alone, since falsifiability is the criteria for something being scientific.

It can also distinguish between truth and non-truth... in a sense. It can never verify truth, but it can always verify what is not truth. Please note that this refers to universal statements, not existential ones.

Now for the point in contention... I think, truthfully for what I think you're trying to say science and truth need to be switched. If I'm wrong then it's verifiability, not falsifiability.


Really the issue is that verifiability is useless because science doesn't verify, it's just a system of falsification.

However there is a massive divide between verifiable false and not verified false. THAT is the difference that matters.

True, science cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood, but suggesting that this throws doubt on it's conclusions is in error. Science can distinguish between false and not proven false, categories that are as relevant and ultimately more important then true and false. Truth is useless because it can never be positively established. Why suggest that lac k of proof for truth is a vulnerability when we already know it is useless?

 

[DuskMarthWater]

...I am reluctant to speak about this, but I want to at the same time. I'm not sure if everyone in here will quite understand me when I say it, but this is what I believe(plus this is the debate hall, so people don't respond with retorts and angry BS very much):

Science is the study of something, right? Through science, mankind has learned to treat innumerable illnesses and to prolong life. However, is this not what Jesus was able to do when he came to Earth? He healed the sick, the blind, even raised people from the dead. Pure religion is what science hopes to be. Note the key word as pure. If people had this 'pure religion', anything would be possible. Faith is believing in things which are not seen but which are hoped for. The reason there is such a clear cut border between those who believe in God and those who believe in simply science is because of this word.

I believe there is a God. Even with all the destruction that goes on in the world. This is another thing that drives people crazy: your original argument. Humans are humans, prone to both the temptations of the devil and the light of Christ to do what is right. Sometimes people do the wrong, and that wrong may be VERY wrong indeed. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and this is called adversity. Without adversity in our lives, non of us could truly grow and learn some things. It is only a trial that you are being put through. Will you be like Job, or will you hate Him for it?

And to respond on your first post(even though someone has probably responded to this)...you do not have to pay for the sins of Adam. Those were his sins, and his alone. Everyone is judge according to their own sins. And think about it, if Adam had not done what he had done with Eve, not one of us would be here right now. He and Eve would still be wandering aimlessly around the Garden of Gethsemane. That's all I'll say on that subject for now, as it is not terribly relevant to what is going on currently.

Anyways, I think that science can only go so far. If you ask why for long enough, or how, then you will eventually reach a point where you cannot answer, no matter how much you research. There will forever remain a mystery in the world yet to solve.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Science is the study of something, right? Through science, mankind has learned to treat innumerable illnesses and to prolong life.

Yes but in a well-defined systematic way. Knowledge can only be gained through the scientific method.

However, is this not what Jesus was able to do when he came to Earth? He healed the sick, the blind, even raised people from the dead.

You're asking us to accept this as truth from the beginning. There is simply no external non-anecdotal evidence that he did this. The same goes for most of the rest of what you say regarding God, etc.

Pure religion is what science hopes to be.

Pure religion is the antithesis of science. Science rejects the concept of faith in the religious sense.

Anyways, I think that science can only go so far. If you ask why for long enough, or how, then you will eventually reach a point where you cannot answer, no matter how much you research. There will forever remain a mystery in the world yet to solve.

I probably agree, but whatever question that is that science cannot answer, it definitely can not be answered by "faith."

 

[adumbrodeus]

Pure religion is the antithesis of science. Science rejects the concept of faith in the religious sense.

No, science merely declines to study what is not falsifiable.

It makes no conclusions on the validity of faith in general, though it does reject conclusions obtained by faith which are falsifiable and found to be false.

I would suggest a study of the philosophy of science before making such assertions.

 

[snex]

No, science merely declines to study what is not falsifiable.

It makes no conclusions on the validity of faith in general, though it does reject conclusions obtained by faith which are falsifiable and found to be false.

I would suggest a study of the philosophy of science before making such assertions.

if faith can ever lead to false conclusions given true premises, then faith is invalid. that is what "invalid" means.

 

[AltF4]

EDITED: Apparently, philosophers use similar but different terminology (as usual) that tripped me up. Nevermind.

What is this thread on a tangent about now? We really need to consolidate all the **** religion threads into just one. If you guys want to discuss logic, then go ahead but I don't see how it's relevant here.