Why I'm not an Atheist

[john!]

Thank you. You've unequivocally admitted that that which is being experienced is not an actual person. It appears as a person, yet isn't. That violates a fundamental law of existence for something to be something other than itself, or for something to be two things at once, under your premise that all things are physical. You've perpetrated a crime of the mind or of physical law, respectively. Therefore, you're not just experiencing a binary sequence of electrons; you're experiencing a person that's not actually real outside of that which is facilitating the experience.

"Not an actual person," is exactly what needed to be said. You've created a tautological enclosure, unless you want to challenge the fundamental law of existence that something can't be something other than itself.

...did you read the sentence after that?

the idea of a person is not the same thing as an actual person at all. one is an independent organism and the other exists within the human brain. they are two different physical entities which have one thing in common: they stimulate the same neurons in the brain that is experiencing them. that doesn't mean that either of them is two things at once.

 

[Vermanubis]

...did you read the sentence after that?

the idea of a person is not the same thing as an actual person at all. one is an independent organism and the other exists within the human brain. they are two different physical entities which have one thing in common: they stimulate the same neurons in the brain that is experiencing them. that doesn't mean that either of them is two things at once.

Yes, and it doesn't subtract from the propositional value of the assertion that you're not witnessing an "actual" person. You conceded that you are experiencing something that is not, in the purely literal sense, the sole action of neuronal stimulation, but an image of a person that is not actually "real."

because there is not an actual person being experienced

You've checkmated yourself. You acknowledge that you are indeed experiencing a person as a person (neurons cannot be both neuron-form and humanoid concomitantly, so this image you conceded as being experienced is therefore emergent and not an electrical process itself, hence either an existential or physical paradox), but one who's not really there. If something isn't "there," then it's not physical, by definition. This particular point of the debate is finished.

 

[john!]

Yes, and it doesn't subtract from the propositional value of the assertion that you're not witnessing an "actual" person. You conceded that you are experiencing something that is not, in the purely literal sense, the sole action of neuronal stimulation, but an image of a person that is not actually "real."

You've checkmated yourself. You acknowledge that you are indeed experiencing a person as a person (neurons cannot be both neuron-form and humanoid concomitantly, so this image you conceded as being experienced is therefore emergent and not an electrical process itself, hence either an existential or physical paradox), but one who's not really there. If something isn't "there," then it's not physical, by definition. This particular point of the debate is finished.

i refer to the neurons in the brain that induce the same psychological experiences that an actual flesh-and-blood human being does as "an imaginary human" for convenience's sake. i could call them a "collection of neurons that excites the same areas of the brain that sensing an actual human being does" if you prefer. the neurons are there, and they are physical, and they are tangible, and they are real.

you falsely assume that something has to be humanoid to excite the "human recognition" areas of the brain. it DOES has to be humanoid to do this via the sensory organs feeding information to the brain, but the "imaginary human" neurons can do this within the brain itself, without the need for sensory organs. they are two entities that excite the same areas of the brain, which is why our brains perceive them in a similar manner despite the fact that they are separate and different.

 

[Vermanubis]

i refer to the neurons in the brain that induce the same psychological experiences that an actual flesh-and-blood human being does as "an imaginary human" for convenience's sake. i could call them a "collection of neurons that excites the same areas of the brain that sensing an actual human being does" if you prefer. the neurons are there, and they are physical, and they are tangible, and they are real.

you falsely assume that something has to be humanoid to excite the "human recognition" areas of the brain. it DOES has to be humanoid to do this via the sensory organs feeding information to the brain, but the "imaginary human" neurons can do this within the brain itself, without the need for sensory organs. they are two entities that excite the same areas of the brain, which is why our brains perceive them in a similar manner despite the fact that they are separate and different.

Since I'm not really interested in entertaining semantics, I'll leave you with the same question I've repeatedly asked, and just now posed to HotH:

When it all comes down to it, I'm interested in only one thing: mathematical paradoxes. Why is a mathematical paradox, such as the Banach-Tarski paradox, possible mathematically, but impossible physically? How can a three-dimensional sphere be broken into finitely many pieces, and rebuild both it and an isomorphic copy of itself? The answer? I know it, but I have a feeling you'll have to capitulate your conceptions of metaphysics to reconcile that particular paradox. There's a clear disjunction between physical reality and metaphysical reality when a physically impossible feat can be transmigrated to the world of the mathematical and suddenly become possible. Again, why? Because metaphysical objects are not bound by physical laws or dimensions. Infinity is another example of something that is physically nonexistent, but mentally so. Infinity cannot be explained by chemical processes alone, because if it were stringently physical, it would require an infinitude of chemical reactions to conceive, which is not the case at all. If the idea/concept of infinity is just as physical as my hand, then that would necessitate an infinite amount of neuronal information to satisfy the premise of ideas being strictly physical. You can't generate more from less; it's impossible. Were such an idea physical, it would be bound by this physical law. So how does infinity exist in the mind and not extrinsically? I'm sorry, but the only types of people who would argue this are sophists, fools, or schizophrenics. If the laws of physics not applying to something does not exonerate it of its alleged status as purely physical, then it's clear why this debate is going in circles.

This question encompasses my entire argument.

 

[john!]

When it all comes down to it, I'm interested in only one thing: mathematical paradoxes. Why is a mathematical paradox, such as the Banach-Tarski paradox, possible mathematically, but impossible physically? How can a three-dimensional sphere be broken into finitely many pieces, and rebuild both it and an isomorphic copy of itself? The answer? I know it, but I have a feeling you'll have to capitulate your conceptions of metaphysics to reconcile that particular paradox. There's a clear disjunction between physical reality and metaphysical reality when a physically impossible feat can be transmigrated to the world of the mathematical and suddenly become possible. Again, why? Because metaphysical objects are not bound by physical laws or dimensions. Infinity is another example of something that is physically nonexistent, but mentally so. Infinity cannot be explained by chemical processes alone, because if it were stringently physical, it would require an infinitude of chemical reactions to conceive, which is not the case at all. If the idea/concept of infinity is just as physical as my hand, then that would necessitate an infinite amount of neuronal information to satisfy the premise of ideas being strictly physical. You can't generate more from less; it's impossible. Were such an idea physical, it would be bound by this physical law. So how does infinity exist in the mind and not extrinsically? I'm sorry, but the only types of people who would argue this are sophists, fools, or schizophrenics. If the laws of physics not applying to something does not exonerate it of its alleged status as purely physical, then it's clear why this debate is going in circles.

ideas (collections of neurons which make our brain experience certain things) do not need to be strictly based on the outside world. for example, i can have the idea of a unicorn, but that doesn't mean unicorns must exist in the outside world. strictly speaking, unicorns (the living horse-like organisms) do not exist, but the idea of a unicorns does exist physically in the brains of humans. it is able to exist because our brains have a process which synthesizes different elements of animals (that we have empirically sensed) into the new (physical) idea of a unicorn. this takes place entirely with chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

the laws of mathematics are similar. we empirically sense objects such as spheres, lines, and surfaces, then create ideas based on (but not identical to) those objects. with these ideas, we are able to synthesize new ideas such as infinity and the BT paradox. the fact that these are impossible in the real world is irrelevant; remember, the idea of a sphere is NOT a sphere, it is a representation of a sphere- just as the word "apple" is not an apple, but a symbolic representation of an apple (which is entirely physical, composed of ink or pixels or whatever).

by using a physical representation of a sphere and not a physical sphere, we are able to ignore physical properties that would limit operations on a physical sphere (such as the conservation of mass/energy) in favor of an infinitely divisible cartesian space (which is an imperfect representation of physical space). once again, this cartesian space is a physical idea, a representation of something that we have empirically sensed (real world 3-d space).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

John! puts its a lot better than myself.

Numbers do not exist by virtue of being "thought" (although, we never actually think of the numbers themselves, only symbols for them, so even by your own logic they do not exist, you said yourself you aren't interested in semantics). You seem to have also backed away from everything you have said up to this point and claim this mathematical paradox is that which encompasses your entire belief, and even in response to my post you refrained from answering and mostly used ad hominem (I know you weren't trying to be offensive, and I'm not offended, I'm purely talking in content, perhaps I shouldn't have referenced myself so my lack of education couldn't be used as an escapism to answering me). Not to mention, in response to my post, you couldn't really explain anything, you were using vague words such as "differently" physical or "metaphysical objects", the former not making any sense, and the latter not being an actual thing, merely suggesting something that which has metaphysical properties, that being everything, for everything has a totality. That does not mean totality itself has a totality. There is no such things as metaphysics isolated, the very essence of it, it doesn't follow at all. There is no such this as metaphysical metaphysics, it is redundant.

Also, I noticed you referenced platonic objects in that post... you know, those don't exist? Plato himself refuted against his own idea, not to mention the idea itself makes no sense and is impossible to prove. You are not much better than me, self-taught, or otherwise you'd know such a thing. You'd also know cogito ergo sum... means "I think therefore I am", not, "I imagine it, therefore it exists". Cogito ergo sum is used as an argument for identifying self-existence, just as it says. Anyways, to return to your usage of the word metaphysics, I really need to be explained is to why you use it as such, I've never heard of it being used outside of being non-physical descriptions of physical objects, not "differently physical", whatever you meant with that.

As for arguing for the sake of arguing, that isn't the case, and that is purely an assumption. I am genuinely not convinced, and not just because all of this seems to forced and unnatural, but logically. There are many questions of mine that haven't been answered.

 

[Vermanubis]

ideas (collections of neurons which make our brain experience certain things) do not need to be strictly based on the outside world. for example, i can have the idea of a unicorn, but that doesn't mean unicorns must exist in the outside world. strictly speaking, unicorns (the living horse-like organisms) do not exist, but the idea of a unicorns does exist physically in the brains of humans. it is able to exist because our brains have a process which synthesizes different elements of animals (that we have empirically sensed) into the new (physical) idea of a unicorn. this takes place entirely with chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

You're still violating physical laws by saying that something can be synthesized from more than what there really is. In order to conceive of a unicorn that is purely physical, you have to witness a unicorn. That representation you keep speaking of in a misguided attempt to reconcile the metaphysical, is in fact, itself, the very metaphysical object I've been speaking of.

the laws of mathematics are similar. we empirically sense objects such as spheres, lines, and surfaces, then create ideas based on (but not identical to) those objects. with these ideas, we are able to synthesize new ideas such as infinity and the BT paradox. the fact that these are impossible in the real world is irrelevant; remember, the idea of a sphere is NOT a sphere, it is a representation of a sphere- just as the word "apple" is not an apple, but a symbolic representation of an apple (which is entirely physical, composed of ink or pixels or whatever).

Ah, but it's not irrelevant. How is a differing level of possibility irrelevant in an existential discussion? You need to examine what you're saying carefully. Your admission of them being symbolic is admission of the metaphysical. Something cannot be two things at once. Something cannot be both a sequence of finite synapses and an abstract representation of something infinite in the physical world. The BT paradox is not physically possible. That in and of itself <proves> that it is not a physical concept. The representation of the BT paradox would still <have to follow existential and physical laws> to be conceived were it strictly a physical phenomenon.

by using a physical representation of a sphere and not a physical sphere, we are able to ignore physical properties that would limit operations on a physical sphere (such as the conservation of mass/energy) in favor of an infinitely divisible cartesian space (which is an imperfect representation of physical space). once again, this cartesian space is a physical idea, a representation of something that we have empirically sensed (real world 3-d space).

Tacking on the word "physical" to the abstract notion of a metaphysical representation, a good argument does not make. A representation is not the thing itself; it is a symbol. If you maintain that a symbol itself is physical, then you're burdened with the task of once again, explaining how the representation principally/existentially differs from the actual thing. Also, what're these "laws of mathematics"? You use the term with confidence, so I want to see if you actually are aware of these laws of which you pontificate. While we're talking about Cartesian space, here's a brain-teaser for you: does a mathematical line exist in the physical world? A mathematical line is one-dimensional; three-dimensional space, however, is inexorably bound. All physical objects have height, width and depth. Were you truly aware of the laws of physics and mathematical conventions, you'd know that a mathematical line cannot exist physically, yet can exist mathematically. The excitation of neurons is neat and all, but it doesn't justify a physical impossibility just because, for some undisclosed reason, neurons can make these apparently magical representations of things that are still ideologically physical. It's an absurd notion; you're beginning to sound more like you're preaching voodoo than I am!

In short: can one-dimensional things actually physically exist? Of course not. Yet we can conceive of them; they therefore exist. It's tautology. The only obstacle now is not demonstrating sound proofs, but finding a way to get you and HotH to understand the concepts at hand beyond an intuitive level.

John! puts its a lot better than myself.

Numbers do not exist by virtue of being "thought" (although, we never actually think of the numbers themselves, only symbols for them, so even by your own logic they do not exist, you said yourself you aren't interested in semantics).

What do semantics have to do with what I said about numbers not physically existing? You're admitting, painfully blatantly, that numbers have symbols that represent them, but are not actually numbers. That in and of itself is an <existential paradox>. By the way, numbers "themselves" and their "symbols" are the exact same thing. If you can reference it, you can conceive of it, and if you can conceive of it, it exists. You referenced "numbers themselves," therefore you conceived of it, therefore they exist. I can keep going with this, you know. There're only so many ways you can ignore or wrest yourself from a contradiction or proof. You now have to distinguish between "numbers themselves" and their "symbols," or refute the existential argument of conception = existence.

This is one of the many instances of which I spoke. The reason I feel that you don't know what you're arguing is because you have said at least three things that conflict with each other at some point in this debate. That tells me that you're fabricating arguments on the fly and not double-checking them for consistency. You have no concrete stance or concrete way to defend it; you're all over the place. You accept one thing, then state something in blatant contradiction of it a minute later.

You seem to have also backed away from everything you have said up to this point and claim this mathematical paradox is that which encompasses your entire belief, and even in response to my post you refrained from answering and mostly used ad hominem (I know you weren't trying to be offensive, and I'm not offended, I'm purely talking in content, perhaps I shouldn't have referenced myself so my lack of education couldn't be used as an escapism to answering me).

No. I was just getting tired of explaining the same thing. Even Euclid himself couldn't convince the Sophists of his parallel postulate. There're only so many ways I can force a horse to drink water. As for the ad hominem, you're invoking it incorrectly. Ad hominem is when an insult is used in place of good reasoning, not in conjunction. If I present a good point, and tell you you smell funny, that isn't ad hominem.

Not to mention, in response to my post, you couldn't really explain anything, you were using vague words such as "differently" physical or "metaphysical objects", the former not making any sense, and the latter not being an actual thing, merely suggesting something that which has metaphysical properties, that being everything, for everything has a totality. That does not mean totality itself has a totality. There is no such things as metaphysics isolated, the very essence of it, it doesn't follow at all. There is no such this as metaphysical metaphysics, it is redundant.

Well, that's unfortunately the difficulty one encounters when debating with someone who's not educated in the field they're debating it. If you prefer, we can transition to intensional logic to verify my claims of metaphysical objects, for example:

Taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"A frame is a structure <G, R>, where G is a non-empty set and R is a binary relation on G. Members of G are states (or possible worlds). R is an accessibility relation. For Γ, Δ ∈ G, Γ R Δ is read “Δ is accessible from Γ.” A (propositional) valuation on a frame is a mapping, V, that assigns to each propositional letter a mapping from states of the frame to truth values, true or false. For simplicity, we will abbreviate V(P)(Γ) by V(P, Γ). A propositional model is a structure M = <G, R, V>, where <G, R> is a frame and V is a propositional valuation on that frame.

Given a propositional model M = <G, R, V>, the notion of formula X being true at state Γ will be denoted M, Γ ⊨ X, and is characterized by the following standard rules, where P is atomic.

M, Γ ⊨ P ⇔ V(P, Γ) = true
M, Γ ⊨ X ∧ Y ⇔ M, Γ ⊨ X and M, Γ ⊨ Y
… ⇔ …
M, Γ ⊨ □X ⇔ M, Δ ⊨ X for every Δ ∈ G with Γ R Δ
M, Γ ⊨ ◊X ⇔ M, Δ ⊨ X for some Δ ∈G with Γ R Δ"

Again, there are only so many ways you can try to convince someone of something, especially when their understanding of the terminology and concepts at hand is, by self-admission, unsatisfactory. If you want, we could try to discuss intensional logic to delineate between physical signifiers and metaphysical referents.

Also, I noticed you referenced platonic objects in that post... you know, those don't exist? Plato himself refuted against his own idea, not to mention the idea itself makes no sense and is impossible to prove.

Yeah... Platonic objects <don't exist> because they're ideas that have no physical value. Can't touch an idea, can you? If you can, let me know how and I'll give up the ghost immediately. Also, how did Plato refute himself? How is the idea impossible to prove? Seems pretty well-accepted in the mathematical community to me.

You are not much better than me, self-taught, or otherwise you'd know such a thing.

Even though what you said above is brazenly incorrect, I don't see what this has to do with anything.

You'd also know cogito ergo sum... means "I think therefore I am", not, "I imagine it, therefore it exists". Cogito ergo sum is used as an argument for existence, just as it says.

Yep. Sure is. Which is exactly where you contradicted yourself. You said that you don't believe numbers exists, yet you're reference a number by acknowledging it. If you can conceive of it, it exists, at the very least, in the Platonic realm/metaphysical realm. That's a pretty blatant contradiction. I can and have proffered arguments to defend why I'm not mistaken, but you've yet to acknowledge a single contradiction that I've caught you in, such as the one above. Again, by acknowledging numbers, they exist on some level, yet you denied their existence altogether. This not only accentuates poor argumentation habits, it also tells me that you misunderstand one of the most elementary principles of philosophy and the discussion at hand.

Anyways, to return to your usage of the word metaphysics, I really need to be explained is to why you use it as such, I've never heard of it being used outside of being non-physical descriptions of physical objects, not "differently physical", whatever you meant with that.

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

Metaphysics are not "non-physics." You're using incorrect terminology to defend your ego because you don't want to capitulate on any points.

As for arguing for the sake of arguing, that isn't the case, and that is purely an assumption. I am genuinely not convinced, and not just because all of this seems to forced and unnatural, but logical there are many questions of mine that haven't been answered.

I think that's perhaps because you're not grasping the breadth of the topic at hand, not because you're dumb, but because you're stubborn and more adamant about saving face than learning.

 

[MuraRengan]

There is no such thing as suspension of the laws we live by, because the thing that which suspends the laws would have to bear an explicable potentiality of suspending said laws while under those same laws.

Take note that I'm not ignoring your entire reply by singling out this one quote. I just feel that for the sake of order, I should start my argument here and it will address all following arguments you made in your post.

The potentiality to suspend the laws of physics can be found intrinsically rather than deductively. For example, if my paradoxes are sound as they are, I have no need to scientifically prove the same end. If my paradoxes are sound then we know that a regressing infinity of things to be explained is not true within reality, and it follows that there will be one or many things that literally cannot be explained by science either now or in the future.

However, this reality too does not make sense, because, as a purely reasonable prespective would imagine, and as you have stated you believe: There is no such thing as suspension of the laws we live by. So something that suspends these laws does not make sense, including the eventual one or many things I have identified that are not explainable. My point is, that is my paradoxes are sound, regardless of whether or not God exists, there are things in this reality that do not make sense and they and all things which hinder on their existence should not exist because they violate the law of causality. Thus in a purely reasonable and scientific reality, if all things are fundamentally compounded on basic things that would have to violate the law of causality in order to exist, nothing should exist.

However, since things DO exist, we know that this statement "There is no such thing as suspension of the laws we live by" is false, because if my paradoxes are sound there must be at least one thing that cannot be explained. This is necessary in order for existence itself to make sense.

However, it is also necessary, in order for existence to make sense, that whatever the one or many things that cannot be explained scientifically be explained in some other way. That other way, by nature of not being scientific, may be comprised of any set of unscientific principles, such as suspending the laws of physics. In order to make sense of the unexplainables, the laws we live by must be suspended and we must acknowledge the necessity of unrealistic forces. This has all been said already, but I just like to make the point again because I think you missed a vital part.

Now here is the most important part of the argument: Whatever exists that suspends the laws we live by must, by nature, be incomprehensible to us because we can only understand things as they relate to the laws we live by. Therefore, it may be correct to say that God does not "exist" but only in so far as we totally understand existence. We understand existence in this plane of reality, and if other planes exist, with different natural laws, it is impossible for us to comprehend them because we can only experience our own natural laws. Thus, when it becomes evident that another plane of existence "exists" we must yield all of our understanding of it to only the mere fact of its existence, because this is the furthest that our experience of our laws can allow us to understand other laws.

This is why God is not subject to the paradoxes, because in another plane of existence there may be no basic concept of "first" and "second" to which everything is beholden. And I remind you that even if you still reject "absurdities", as long as my paradoxes are sound, you are still faced with the unexplainables, which, by your own logic, should not exist.

 

[Levingy]

I think that just because there are things we don't know or understand, doesn't mean we whould start believing god. Nothing implies that god is behind it. The burden of proof is on their side who claim that something ( in this case, god) exists.

 

[Vermanubis]

I think that just because there are things we don't know or understand, doesn't mean we whould start believing god. Nothing implies that god is behind it. The burden of proof is on their side who claim that something ( in this case, god) exists.

It doesn't mean you we should idle and just be satisfied with unknowns, either. It's the discovery of the metaphysical that opens possibilities. Though it may not directly entail God, it certainly has implications; it's just up to the person to explore for themselves and reach conclusions.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You're still violating physical laws by saying that something can be synthesized from more than what there really is. In order to conceive of a unicorn that is purely physical, you have to witness a unicorn. That representation you keep speaking of in a misguided attempt to reconcile the metaphysical, is in fact, itself, the very metaphysical object I've been speaking of.

In order to visualize a unicorn, you can combine traits you have actually seen to formulate, or even a drawing of one, and thus nothing was actually created, it is still an equivalent exchange of sense-datum.

Tacking on the word "physical" to the abstract notion of a metaphysical representation, a good argument does not make. A representation is not the thing itself; it is a symbol. If you maintain that a symbol itself is physical, then you're burdened with the task of once again, explaining how the representation principally/existentially differs from the actual thing. Also, what're these "laws of mathematics"? You use the term with confidence, so I want to see if you actually are aware of these laws of which you pontificate. While we're talking about Cartesian space, here's a brain-teaser for you: does a mathematical line exist in the physical world? A mathematical line is one-dimensional; three-dimensional space, however, is inexorably bound. All physical objects have height, width and depth. Were you truly aware of the laws of physics and mathematical conventions, you'd know that a mathematical line cannot exist physically, yet can exist mathematically. The excitation of neurons is neat and all, but it doesn't justify a physical impossibility just because, for some undisclosed reason, neurons can make these apparently magical representations of things that are still ideologically physical. It's an absurd notion; you're beginning to sound more like you're preaching voodoo than I am!

I believe we have all said this, but what you sense is not the object, but the sense-datum you receive, therefore imagining the sense-datum and sensing it are only different in the sense that one is much more clear because it is presently being sensed.

And also, if something exists only mathematically, it doesn't exist at all, you can't even ACTUALLY imagine a one-dimension ANYTHING. That is the danger of getting attached to mathematics, many people attribute too much to them at the expense of logic.

What do semantics have to do with what I said about numbers not physically existing? You're admitting, painfully blatantly, that numbers have symbols that represent them, but are not actually numbers. That in and of itself is an <existential paradox>. By the way, numbers "themselves" and their "symbols" are the exact same thing. If you can reference it, you can conceive of it, and if you can conceive of it, it exists. You referenced "numbers themselves," therefore you conceived of it, therefore they exist. I can keep going with this, you know. There're only so many ways you can ignore or wrest yourself from a contradiction or proof. You now have to distinguish between "numbers themselves" and their "symbols," or refute the existential argument of conception = existence.

Numbers themselves are not their symbols, the symbol for the number one is the symbol for number one, it isn't the "essence" of number one. That is absurd, and does not make sense. You can't even conceive of this non-physical mind you speak of, so by your own logic it must not exist. Again, there are NO such things as number themselves. They are measurements, we use symbols to demonstrate other things, they themselves do not have anything to them. Try very hard to conceive of the essence of one. You will fail every single time.

No. I was just getting tired of explaining the same thing. Even Euclid himself couldn't convince the Sophists of his parallel postulate. There're only so many ways I can force a horse to drink water. As for the ad hominem, you're invoking it incorrectly. Ad hominem is when an insult is used in place of good reasoning, not in conjunction. If I present a good point, and tell you you smell funny, that isn't ad hominem.

When you simply fill up most of a post that is used to counter something I say with telling me that I am simply incapable of changing my mind because I want to save "face" on the internet (which doesn't make much sense anyhow, since there is no face to protect on the internet, and I have went humbly forth complimenting you at the start and expressing "I know that I know very little" (slight alteration of Socrates XD), so clearly I am more interested with learning. Since I am self-taught, I am a bad teacher and therefore a bad student, so the way to do it is by speaking with others, this is it. For everyone to know right now, yes I am the least qualified in philosophy here. That doesn't change that I could be right, and that some things I say are not adequately answered. I've been using pure inherent logic.

Well, that's unfortunately the difficulty one encounters when debating with someone who's not educated in the field they're debating it. If you prefer, we can transition to intensional logic to verify my claims of metaphysical objects, for example:

Taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:



Again, there are only so many ways you can try to convince someone of something, especially when their understanding of the terminology and concepts at hand is, by self-admission, unsatisfactory. If you want, we could try to discuss intensional logic to delineate between physical signifiers and metaphysical referents.

Only someone who is pretending to understand something advanced can't "condescend" to explain simpler principles that you would by default would have to know to know anything greater than that.

Yeah... Platonic objects <don't exist> because they're ideas that have no physical value. Can't touch an idea, can you? If you can, let me know how and I'll give up the ghost immediately. Also, how did Plato refute himself? How is the idea impossible to prove? Seems pretty well-accepted in the mathematical community to me.

Go read the Socratic Dialogue "Parmenides" where Socrates expresses the idea of forms and is then refuted by the dialogue's namesake. Plato never comes up with an answer. And also, I am confused, you say they don't exist, but then you say they are impossible to prove. If something doesn't exist, that implies it cannot be proven, right?

Yep. Sure is. Which is exactly where you contradicted yourself. You said that you don't believe numbers exists, yet you're reference a number by acknowledging it. If you can conceive of it, it exists, at the very least, in the Platonic realm/metaphysical realm. That's a pretty blatant contradiction. I can and have proffered arguments to defend why I'm not mistaken, but you've yet to acknowledge a single contradiction that I've caught you in, such as the one above. Again, by acknowledging numbers, they exist on some level, yet you denied their existence altogether. This not only accentuates poor argumentation habits, it also tells me that you misunderstand one of the most elementary principles of philosophy and the discussion at hand.

Numbers cannot, even if they existed in a sense, which they don't for that matter and haven't been accurately proven, have cognizance of themselves. Therefore "Cogito ergo sum", under the assumption Descartes was right to begin with, does not apply to numbers that cannot think of themselves.

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

Metaphysics are not "non-physics." You're using incorrect terminology to defend your ego because you don't want to capitulate on any points.

Again, you're assuming I'm doing something with my ego, you can't say things without having the slightest bit of proof. I've never said metaphysics is non-physics. The prefix doesn't even have to do with the predicate "physics", because "metaphysics" was named very fortuitously by translators who have found Aristotle's work and simply because it was ordered by the Greek letters and thus could have been "Alphaphysics" or "Betaphysics" for that matter.

 

[Spamus43]

Verm, I only found this thread today, so I apologize for bringing up points that seem to have been left behind; but I wanted to comment on a few of the mathematical arguments/analogies that you've made.

First, where are you getting your definitions of (im)proper subset from? The definitions I know - and the only definitions I've been able to find anywhere - are these:

A set X is a subset of a set Y iff for each element x in X, x in Y as well (note that this implies that every set is a subset of itself).
Two sets, X and Y, are equal iff X is a subset of Y and Y is a subset of X.
If X is a subset of Y and X =/= Y, then X is called a proper subset of Y.

(in case it's unclear what set theory is: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/), the improper and proper subsets of a set are demonstrably different, despite being comprised of the exact same elements. If there exists a set (1, 2, 3), then the improper subset is (1) (1,2) (1,2,3) and the null set. The proper subset, however, is the improper subset plus the set of all subsets. The set in its entirety is different from its parts, as demonstrated by the nature of improper and proper subsets. The set can't exist without its parts, but is undeniable different. This principle applies to Hume's position of metaphysics/categories.

To use your example, if A = {1, 2, 3} the proper subsets of A are { }, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1, 3}, {2,3} and the (only) improper subset is {1, 2, 3} - A itself. I didn't read the article you linked, but a ctrl-F search for "proper subset" showed nothing to contradict this.


Secondly, regarding the Banach-Tarski paradox: I don't think it's legitimate to use this to demonstrate a disjunction between the physical and non-physical realms. The proof of the theorem requires the Axiom of Choice as a premise. More specifically, AC implies that there exist unmeasurable sets; in a geometric setting, this means that there exists a set with no volume (note that "no volume" and "zero volume" in this case are not the same). The "pieces" that the sphere is decomposed into are unmeasurable, so counter-intuitive things happen when you try to reassemble them.

You say:

In thought/mathematics, it is possible to violate physical laws, while still playing by the rules of logic and reality. This creates paradox and necessarily entails a disjunction between the physical and the non-physical.

But AC seems to violate the rules of reality pretty clearly. So why do we have one realm where BT is possible, and where where it isn't? Simple: it's possible in the realm where we assume the physically impossible.

 

[Vermanubis]

In order to visualize a unicorn, you can combine traits you have actually seen to formulate, or even a drawing of one, and thus nothing was actually created, it is still an equivalent exchange of sense-datum.

Symbolism is not a metaphysical category.

Then touch a symbol. It's as simple as that.

I believe we have all said this, but what you sense is not the object, but the sense-datum you receive, therefore imagining the sense-datum and sensing it are only different in the sense that one is much more clear because it is presently being sensed.

And also, if something exists only mathematically, it doesn't exist at all, you can't even ACTUALLY imagine a one-dimension ANYTHING. That is the danger of getting attached to mathematics, many people attribute too much to them at the expense of logic.

They don't exist? Care to explain? You can't just escape the explanation of mathematical paradoxes by saying "they don't exist." Clearly, if the concept entered a real discussion, then it must exist in some manner. You're still burdened with defining existence.

Also, you can imagine a line, actually. You're mistaking visualization for conception. A line cannot exist physically, but is mathematically validated. Just a reminder to answer: why is a mathematical paradox possible mathematically, but impossible physically?

Numbers themselves are not their symbols, the symbol for the number one is the symbol for number one, it isn't the "essence" of number one. That is absurd, and does not make sense. You can't even conceive of this non-physical mind you speak of, so by your own logic it must not exist.

I'm not referring to physically written symbols or notation. I'm referring to intensional symbols. Also, who said I can't conceive of a metaphysical mind? I may not be able to visualize it, but I can clearly conceive of it, as I'm referring to it. To correct the term again, non-physical is not a part of this discussion. Non-physical means something that is inherently separate from the physical, which the metaphysical is not.

Again, there are NO such things as number themselves. They are measurements, we use symbols to demonstrate other things, they themselves do not have anything to them. Try very hard to conceive of the essence of one. You will fail every single time.

I'm succeeding, actually. If numbers themselves didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to mention them. If numbers themselves didn't exist, we would require physical analogues for every mathematical equation we solved. Algebra wouldn't exist. Nor would Calculus. Nor would set theory. Numbers are arbitrary, meaningless constructs that do not require a physical analogue to represent their inherent value. You're failing to grasp conception. If something can be thought of, if it doesn't exist physically, then from where comes the thought? You are fettered to that one question, and have yet to reconcile it. Why is the Banach-Tarski paradox able to coincide with the laws of logic, but have its possibility split between two realms? You have to think of something; proffer something that represents the <idea> of a sphere, without being bound by the physical nature of the sphere itself. You can keep ignoring that question, but it's tautological. If you think of a sphere but are able to violate its inherent material existence, then there's a disjunction.

When you simply fill up most of a post that is used to counter something I say with telling me that I am simply incapable of changing my mind because I want to save "face" on the internet (which doesn't make much sense anyhow, since there is no face to protect on the internet, and I have went humbly forth complimenting you at the start and expressing "I know that I know very little" (slight alteration of Socrates XD), so clearly I am more interested with learning. Since I am self-taught, I am a bad teacher and therefore a bad student, so the way to do it is by speaking with others, this is it. For everyone to know right now, yes I am the least qualified in philosophy here. That doesn't change that I could be right, and that some things I say are not adequately answered. I've been using pure inherent logic.

Pure "inherent"(?) logic is only as viable as its foundation. You're operating on intuitionistic logic, which traps you in a paradigm.

Only someone who is pretending to understand something advanced can't "condescend" to explain simpler principles that you would by default would have to know to know anything greater than that.

Pardon?

Go read the Socratic Dialogue "Parmenides" where Socrates expresses the idea of forms and is then refuted by the dialogue's namesake. Plato never comes up with an answer. And also, I am confused, you say they don't exist, but then you say they are impossible to prove. If something doesn't exist, that implies it cannot be proven, right?

Had you read the whole dialogue, you'd know that Parmenides was a proponent for the theory of Forms, and conceded that his argument was only victorious because of Socrates' insufficient preparation for such an attack.

And I never said anything something not existing or being impossible to prove.

Numbers cannot, even if they existed in a sense, which they don't for that matter and haven't been accurately proven, have cognizance of themselves. Therefore "Cogito ergo sum", under the assumption Descartes was right to begin with, does not apply to numbers that cannot think of themselves.

Yes, that was the principle argument, but my argument logically emanates from it. The principle is that thought entails existence. If it can be conceived, it exists one way or the other. Sentience does not impede the principality of the argument.

Again, you're assuming I'm doing something with my ego, you can't say things without having the slightest bit of proof. I've never said metaphysics is non-physics. The prefix doesn't even have to do with the predicate "physics", because "metaphysics" was named very fortuitously by translators who have found Aristotle's work and simply because it was ordered by the Greek letters and thus could have been "Alphaphysics" or "Betaphysics" for that matter.

Initially it didn't, but its intention and its purpose are wildly different animals. Its purpose coincides with the meaning of the prefix, so its original name doesn't matter as long as the material coincides with the ascribed definition. I don't know what the point of this was.

 

[Levingy]

It doesn't mean you we should idle and just be satisfied with unknowns, either. It's the discovery of the metaphysical that opens possibilities. Though it may not directly entail God, it certainly has implications; it's just up to the person to explore for themselves and reach conclusions.

I find the process of discovery also interesting, but putting god to explain all the things we just don't know only raises more questions than gives answers. Sometimes I feel like, we're(some of us) are settled with the issue if it's God who made all happen, and it doesn't then bother at all how he did it and how it is possible. But if science can't atm explain everything, then we are going to question it without hesitation and it must be god who did it! It just doesn't make sense. Human beings are religious animals, we have to believe in something that can't be explained atm, whether or not we even want to discover the truth.

I think some people has one misunderstanding about atheists that science = atheist. That if you are an atheist, then you believe in science. But that is not true. The thing that defines atheist is, that he/she doesn't believe there is a God. Nothing else. You can be an atheist whether or not you believe in science. So when you are debating with yourself if you're an atheist or not, leave science out of it! It doesn't have anything to do with it. If only thing(s) that made you the decision of not being an atheist is/are science not being able to explain everything, then I think you have not understood what atheism is about.

As for myself, I don't believe there is a God. But do I think it is possible that there is a God? Yes, it is possible, though nothing I have experienced in my life up to this date has come even close suggesting that there is someone who created everything and stuff. So highly unlikely, that is why I don't believe it. So there's a difference between not believing something, and denying something. It's like: Do I believe you will win in a lottery? No, I don't believe you will win. But do I think it's possible you will win? Yes, it's possible. I also don't believe 100% in science being right about everything. Though I do find many things in science more believable than in religions.

 

[Vermanubis]

Verm, I only found this thread today, so I apologize for bringing up points that seem to have been left behind; but I wanted to comment on a few of the mathematical arguments/analogies that you've made.

First, where are you getting your definitions of (im)proper subset from? The definitions I know - and the only definitions I've been able to find anywhere - are these:

A set X is a subset of a set Y iff for each element x in X, x in Y as well (note that this implies that every set is a subset of itself).
Two sets, X and Y, are equal iff X is a subset of Y and Y is a subset of X.
If X is a subset of Y and X =/= Y, then X is called a proper subset of Y.


To use your example, if A = {1, 2, 3} the proper subsets of A are { }, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1, 3}, {2,3} and the (only) improper subset is {1, 2, 3} - A itself. I didn't read the article you linked, but a ctrl-F search for "proper subset" showed nothing to contradict this.

This is the postulate for improper and proper subsets; I gave an anecdotal abbreviation to highlight the point that a whole is the sum of its parts, but the whole does not reflect the intensionality of the parts; there's a distinction to be made between the whole, and what comprises the whole.

Secondly, regarding the Banach-Tarski paradox: I don't think it's legitimate to use this to demonstrate a disjunction between the physical and non-physical realms. The proof of the theorem requires the Axiom of Choice as a premise. More specifically, AC implies that there exist unmeasurable sets; in a geometric setting, this means that there exists a set with no volume (note that "no volume" and "zero volume" in this case are not the same). The "pieces" that the sphere is decomposed into are unmeasurable, so counter-intuitive things happen when you try to reassemble them.

You say:



But AC seems to violate the rules of reality pretty clearly. So why do we have one realm where BT is possible, and where where it isn't? Simple: it's possible in the realm where we assume the physically impossible.

Yes. The BT paradox does invoke the AC, but the notion that AC could either be valid or invalid necessarily entails potential irreality. The concept of potential itself is a metaphysical notion, and a physical violation. Counterfactuals represent irreality, which conflicts with physical law.

 

[Spamus43]

This is the postulate for improper and proper subsets; I gave an anecdotal abbreviation to highlight the point that a whole is the sum of its parts, but the whole does not reflect the intensionality of the parts.

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here. From a purely set theoretic standpoint, a set is entirely described by it elements.

Yes. The BT paradox does invoke the AC, but the notion that AC could either be valid or invalid necessarily entails potential irreality. The concept of potential itself is a metaphysical notion, and a physical violation. Counterfactuals represent irreality, which conflicts with physical law.

Let me rephrase this to see if I understand your argument correctly:

We can conceive of AC as valid; hence there is a realm in which we can conceive of it, and since AC contradicts physical laws, this realm must be non-physical.

Does this accurately reflect your position? If so, I think I can buy this as an answer to my specific objection (although I think there's still hope for the physicalist position - I'll need to reread more closely before I get into that, though).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Then touch a symbol. It's as simple as that.

I don't know what you're getting at, I'm not entirely sure how the unicorn point that was made by John is refuted.

They don't exist? Care to explain? You can't just escape the explanation of mathematical paradoxes by saying "they don't exist." Clearly, if the concept entered a real discussion, then it must exist in some manner. You're still burdened with defining existence.

Here: Existence is the state of something when it is physical and logical. Without both criterion being met, it simply does not exist. All things must have sense to it, and all things need to be actually there, and therefore must be physical as well. Those two criterion are existence isolated to its exact criterion, nothing else is needed.

I'm not referring to physically written symbols or notation. I'm referring to intensional symbols. Also, who said I can't conceive of a metaphysical mind? I may not be able to visualize it, but I can clearly conceive of it, as I'm referring to it. To correct the term again, non-physical is not a part of this discussion. Non-physical means something that is inherently separate from the physical, which the metaphysical is not.

We can conceive of many things if we'd like, and yet that doesn't entail existence, or else all sorts of absurd things could exist, an immense amount of things if not infinite. And no, you cannot talk about a metaphysical mind, you have yet to make any sense of what you talk about, you don't know what it is like, how it is there, etc. Nothing can exist without the ability of people imagining it, because that means you cannot sense it in any way imaginable, and therefore there is nothing to even imagine.

Also, numbers are not metaphysical, they are ideas that can measure, you can't even isolate one of anything in existence, let alone one itself. They aren't non-physical either, they just don't exist in any form. There are no such things as metaphysical either, they just merely describe physical things. A "type of description of being" mind doesn't make sense. If you are going to use the "beyond physical" metaphysics mentioned earlier, may I remind you that you beat into the discussion you do not mean non-physical. It feels like you are cherry-picking with this non-physical and metaphysical stuff. So either you are proposing something non-physical, which you admitted to having no explanation for, or you are saying something nonsensical with metaphysics.

I'm succeeding, actually. If numbers themselves didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to mention them.

I can mention a lot of things we both would agree don't exist.

If numbers themselves didn't exist, we would require physical analogues for every mathematical equation we solved. Algebra wouldn't exist. Nor would Calculus. Nor would set theory. Numbers are arbitrary, meaningless constructs that do not require a physical analogue to represent their inherent value. You're failing to grasp conception. If something can be thought of, if it doesn't exist physically, then from where comes the thought? You are fettered to that one question, and have yet to reconcile it. Why is the Banach-Tarski paradox able to coincide with the laws of logic, but have its possibility split between two realms? You have to think of something; proffer something that represents the <idea> of a sphere, without being bound by the physical nature of the sphere itself. You can keep ignoring that question, but it's tautological. If you think of a sphere but are able to violate its inherent material existence, then there's a disjunction.

Numbers are learned from us sensing more than one thing. Numbers don't even exist unless it is relative to objects for it to signify, so again they are purely symbols, and those do not exist, if existence was all one thing, the conception of plurality wouldn't come across to us (although the universe being one thing is absurd, but it demonstrates my point). It is like how we made human time, by labeling a measurement with a symbol such as a second or a day. The idea of numbers only came to light because of other ideas. Again, trying to coincide mathematical sense to physical sense is going to confuse you, just as you are and are thus forced to put forth something you don't even understand to answer it, is not a good idea.

Pardon?

It isn't a puzzle, but I myself am willing to explain things luckily for you using the method just explained. If I understand math well, better than most people, logically I should be able to explain how to people that don't know it, and that I should also be well aware of smaller things such as 1+1=2, and so on.

Had you read the whole dialogue, you'd know that Parmenides was a proponent for the theory of Forms, and conceded that his argument was only victorious because of Socrates' insufficient preparation for such an attack.

Yeah, just because he believed in them doesn't change the fact that he couldn't make sense of it either or prove anything. If I believe I am right in this conversation... does that make me right? Surely not, you believe you're right too! And interestingly, no one has been able to make sense of forms since. It is unlikely we will ever be insufficient to prove it since it doesn't exist.

And I never said anything something not existing or being impossible to prove.

Platonic objects <don't exist>

How is the idea impossible to prove?

If you think something doesn't exist it becomes impossible to prove on the assumption you are correct. Of course, you believe in things can exist without existence, but I'm still waiting for some explanation as to how something can bear both negating qualities at once.

Yes, that was the principle argument, but my argument logically emanates from it. The principle is that thought entails existence. If it can be conceived, it exists one way or the other. Sentience does not impede the principality of the argument.

Thinking entails existence. Thinking of something doesn't entail the existence of that something, only that which is thinking is proven to exist.

 

[MuraRengan]

If you think something doesn't exist it becomes impossible to prove on the assumption you are correct. Of course, you believe in things can exist without existence, but I'm still waiting for some explanation as to how something can bear both negating qualities at once.

I kinda covered that in my last post, which you haven't responded to.

I think that just because there are things we don't know or understand, doesn't mean we whould start believing god. Nothing implies that god is behind it. The burden of proof is on their side who claim that something ( in this case, god) exists.

Please don't make this mistake. The issue isn't about things that science doesn't know yet. It's about things that science CAN'T know. What will we do when science, inevitably, faces a unknown that cannot be known (through science)? It's not jumping to God whenever science hasn't explained, it's jumping to God when science literally cannot explain. Like Vermanubis said, it is absolutely foolish to idly accept unknowns especially when it's evident that there will be things that science can't explain. I don't use God as an explanation for all the things I don't understand, I use it as an explanation for the things that I know my human perception of reality cannot grasp.

 

[IronSquid]

The Smash community was your FIRST exposer to atheists? I never thought I could possibly love this community more.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Take note that I'm not ignoring your entire reply by singling out this one quote. I just feel that for the sake of order, I should start my argument here and it will address all following arguments you made in your post.

The potentiality to suspend the laws of physics can be found intrinsically rather than deductively. For example, if my paradoxes are sound as they are, I have no need to scientifically prove the same end. If my paradoxes are sound then we know that a regressing infinity of things to be explained is not true within reality, and it follows that there will be one or many things that literally cannot be explained by science either now or in the future.

Still confused as to how a paradox allows for another paradox. Paradoxes are a no go at all, so unfortunately, something logical has to answer it.

However, this reality too does not make sense, because, as a purely reasonable prespective would imagine, and as you have stated you believe: There is no such thing as suspension of the laws we live by. So something that suspends these laws does not make sense, including the eventual one or many things I have identified that are not explainable. My point is, that is my paradoxes are sound, regardless of whether or not God exists, there are things in this reality that do not make sense and they and all things which hinder on their existence should not exist because they violate the law of causality. Thus in a purely reasonable and scientific reality, if all things are fundamentally compounded on basic things that would have to violate the law of causality in order to exist, nothing should exist.

You don't seem to understand that your own answer breaks the law of causality, and breaks all we know with logic, and you're doing it knowingly, you are straight up saying we don't have the answers just yet so I am going to use the escapism of a fundamentally illogical being that stereotypically normally used by humans when they are either too lazy, unwilling to wait for an answer, or incapable of logic, the second one being the one in your case, since you acknowledge how illogical it is and don't express laziness.

However, since things DO exist, we know that this statement "There is no such thing as suspension of the laws we live by" is false, because if my paradoxes are sound there must be at least one thing that cannot be explained. This is necessary in order for existence itself to make sense.

Again, you don't know any more than anyone else. Even if you are correct, that doesn't mean that it makes existence itself sensible, it actually makes it lack sense. Nothing that is explained through a lack of explanation like I've said before. This is not the first time that our current understanding of things have shown difficulties that later proved verifiable with advances, in fact we have some things that we cannot explain about how bees fly and little trivial things like that. Might as well say that bees have magic that suspends the laws of physics in order to travel.

However, it is also necessary, in order for existence to make sense, that whatever the one or many things that cannot be explained scientifically be explained in some other way. That other way, by nature of not being scientific, may be comprised of any set of unscientific principles, such as suspending the laws of physics. In order to make sense of the unexplainables, the laws we live by must be suspended and we must acknowledge the necessity of unrealistic forces. This has all been said already, but I just like to make the point again because I think you missed a vital part.

Now here is the most important part of the argument: Whatever exists that suspends the laws we live by must, by nature, be incomprehensible to us because we can only understand things as they relate to the laws we live by. Therefore, it may be correct to say that God does not "exist" but only in so far as we totally understand existence. We understand existence in this plane of reality, and if other planes exist, with different natural laws, it is impossible for us to comprehend them because we can only experience our own natural laws. Thus, when it becomes evident that another plane of existence "exists" we must yield all of our understanding of it to only the mere fact of its existence, because this is the furthest that our experience of our laws can allow us to understand other laws.

Well, I'm going to ignore the fact that you can't prove such dimensions exist, but you also need to remember that no matter the "dimensions", the ones that are theorized, follow the same rules as our current one except for different levels of the Four Forces and such things. And let us pretend that such a dimension can cause our universe... why would a God have to be the force used? At that point, when reaching in the dark with things that ALSO science has not discovered entirely, you can't say much about it, and you don't seem to be very proficient in the matter yourself. Nonetheless, God would be highly likely to not be that which caused the universe but simple dimension interference.

This is why God is not subject to the paradoxes, because in another plane of existence there may be no basic concept of "first" and "second" to which everything is beholden. And I remind you that even if you still reject "absurdities", as long as my paradoxes are sound, you are still faced with the unexplainables, which, by your own logic, should not exist.

You can't explain the paradoxes that arise from things that aren't "first" and "second", so please explain your discoveries, I'd honestly love to read them.

 

[Dre89]

If you believe in God because you think the world is designed, or think there is some physical phenomena in the universe science has yet to explain, then yes, maybe you are committing and argument from ignorance fallacy, and maybe science will explain it in the future (depending on what your argument is).

This is pretty much all science has to do with God. It can be used to make or refute arguments of design, or any specific physics model a theist has to have to accomodate their belief.


If you're an educated theist/deist and believe a God exists for other reasons, such as metaphysical arguments, then no developments in science will make a difference to that.

People show themselves to be uneducated in the topic when they say all belief in God is a result of a lack understanding in contemporary science, still thinking the question of God is a scientific issue. It's ok to uneducated on it, just not when you speak with assumed authority.

 

[john!]

People show themselves to be uneducated in the topic when they say all belief in God is a result of a lack understanding in contemporary science, still thinking the question of God is a scientific issue. It's ok to uneducated on it, just not when you speak with assumed authority.

hmm should i bite?

the question of god is a scientific issue, but contemporary science has not disproved or provided evidence again a belief in god. suppose we found evidence of god somehow using our new supercollider. would god suddenly "become a scientific issue"? that doesn't make sense. a question is scientific whether it currently has an answer or not.

 

[Dre89]

hmm should i bite?

the question of god is a scientific issue, but contemporary science has not disproved or provided evidence again a belief in god. suppose we found evidence of god somehow using our new supercollider. would god suddenly "become a scientific issue"? that doesn't make sense. a question is scientific whether it currently has an answer or not.

Science is the study of observabe phenomena. The question of God is whether observable phenomena needed to be created by a God or not.

How is it a question of science when the whole argument for God is that observable phenomena needs to be created by something with completely different ontological properties to observable phenomena (meaning it isn't observable)? If the God people were proposing was ontoloigcally similar to observable phenomena (eg. it was an observable phenomena) then no intelligent theist would think God exists.

Do you even know the arguments that intelligent theists use? I seriously hope you don't think the design argument is the only one they use.


If you do know them, show me how they're a result of a lack of understanding in science.

 

[john!]

science operates using inductive proof. the vast majority of arguments presented in favor of god are deductive arguments. they are two different methods of proof. just because you use a deductive argument doesn't mean that you don't understand science.

in response to the second paragraph that you just added in:

- just because god has some different properties from phenomena in our universe doesn't mean that he is not observable.

- why would an intelligent theist think that god didn't exist just because he had the potential to be observed?

 

[MuraRengan]

Still confused as to how a paradox allows for another paradox. Paradoxes are a no go at all, so unfortunately, something logical has to answer it.

I'm confused now as well. How am I letting one paradox allow another?

You don't seem to understand that your own answer breaks the law of causality, and breaks all we know with logic, and you're doing it knowingly, you are straight up saying we don't have the answers just yet so I am going to use the escapism of a fundamentally illogical being that stereotypically normally used by humans when they are either too lazy, unwilling to wait for an answer, or incapable of logic, the second one being the one in your case, since you acknowledge how illogical it is and don't express laziness.

Um, I'm very aware that my answer breaks the law of causality. I've said specifically numerous times that my answer must break natural laws. Your problem is that you believe that logic supersedes everything, that everything that exists has to be logical. Hell, I've already pointed out the flaw in that thinking, in that, God or no, there are things that are unexplainable, and you seem to have ignored that completely. The issue is not that I'm unwilling to wait, but that I see the futility in expecting science to explain everything infinitely.

Again, you don't know any more than anyone else. Even if you are correct, that doesn't mean that it makes existence itself sensible, it actually makes it lack sense. Nothing that is explained through a lack of explanation like I've said before. This is not the first time that our current understanding of things have shown difficulties that later proved verifiable with advances, in fact we have some things that we cannot explain about how bees fly and little trivial things like that. Might as well say that bees have magic that suspends the laws of physics in order to travel.

I never said anything about our current understanding of things, that has nothing to do with it. I don't claim to know anything that cannot be known by someone else. The only thing that matters to me is whether or not my paradoxes are sound. Because if my they sound, then things that cannot be explained MUST exist, regardless of how many times we revise our science, no matter how long we try new things, these things cannot be understood. Now ask yourself, are my paradoxes sound?

Well, I'm going to ignore the fact that you can't prove such dimensions exist, but you also need to remember that no matter the "dimensions", the ones that are theorized, follow the same rules as our current one except for different levels of the Four Forces and such things. And let us pretend that such a dimension can cause our universe... why would a God have to be the force used? At that point, when reaching in the dark with things that ALSO science has not discovered entirely, you can't say much about it, and you don't seem to be very proficient in the matter yourself. Nonetheless, God would be highly likely to not be that which caused the universe but simple dimension interference.

Just because theorized dimensions follow the same rules doesn't mean the actual ones, if they exist, will. You're grasping. As long as a dimension follows our rules, it will also have our same paradox problems and would be subject to the same conclusion. If you want to speculate that another dimension caused our dimension, that's fine, but still, if that dimension follows our rules, you'll still have to explain that dimension in the same manner.

You can't explain the paradoxes that arise from things that aren't "first" and "second", so please explain your discoveries, I'd honestly love to read them.

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you perhaps reword it?

And again, you have ignored one of the most crucial parts of my post, so I'll just post it again.

I remind you that even if you still reject "absurdities", as long as my paradoxes are sound, you are still faced with the unexplainables, which, by your own logic, should not exist.

If you believe in God because you think the world is designed, or think there is some physical phenomena in the universe science has yet to explain, then yes, maybe you are committing and argument from ignorance fallacy, and maybe science will explain it in the future (depending on what your argument is).

Idk if this was addressed at me or not, but let me make this clear. My stance is not that "think there is some physical phenomena in the universe science has yet to explain", my stance is that there is some physical phenomena in the universe that science ultimately CANNOT explain. It has nothing to do with waiting for science to explain it, because we can wait for an impossibility to happen forever and never truly know whether it was an impossibility. I recognize the ultimate impossibility, though that impossibility may not be the current scientific affair, through the explanation of the paradox of infinite regression (which I can quote if necessary), and thus have decided that scientific inquiry is not the ultimate answer to understanding existence.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm confused now as well. How am I letting one paradox allow another?

You are saying something that can't be explained, like paradoxes that are illogical, should be solved by something illogical and can't be explained. If things were as you say they are, that'd be a paradox, we would have made a full circle for no reason.

Um, I'm very aware that my answer breaks the law of causality. I've said specifically numerous times that my answer must break natural laws. Your problem is that you believe that logic supersedes everything, that everything that exists has to be logical. Hell, I've already pointed out the flaw in that thinking, in that, God or no, there are things that are unexplainable, and you seem to have ignored that completely. The issue is not that I'm unwilling to wait, but that I see the futility in expecting science to explain everything infinitely.

And I've already repeated ad naseum as to how logic DOES proceed everything, and you haven't given a good reason why it could not. Think about how we must define existence, as something physical (that follows physics) and something logical (a square circle could not exist, no matter what). Before we can even think about the physics of something, it first has to be approved of whether or not it is logically conceivable because that reigns over all things, even over your own dogma that tries to reconcile the illogical things you find, although unfortunately your answer does nothing. If it isn't logical, that step by step in a syllogistic manner, that some sort of God made us, then in NO conceivable way can it happen, even if it breaks our laws of physics. You see, even you aren't putting physical over logic, because making the claim something can't physically do something, that implies it wouldn't logically happen. If logic took the backseat, we could just say the Big Bang started itself because something inexplicable needed to happen, you never addressed why it had to be God to do this inexplicable thing, you only have that idea in your mind because humans generally want to just attribute God with such things without realizing the implications.

I never said anything about our current understanding of things, that has nothing to do with it. I don't claim to know anything that cannot be known by someone else. The only thing that matters to me is whether or not my paradoxes are sound. Because if my they sound, then things that cannot be explained MUST exist, regardless of how many times we revise our science, no matter how long we try new things, these things cannot be understood. Now ask yourself, are my paradoxes sound?

Did you know paradoxes are something resolved by advancements and furthering of study and knowledge? If not, then this is pointless. I'm sorry, but you aren't capable of making such absolutely bold statements, big claims require big evidence, and considering no other scientist goes, "Well, our theory of the Big Bang, assumed correct, it just seems to through everything we have learned out the window." I'm sorry, it isn't happening, and even if it can, it can't be assumed to do so. Assumptions are not good.

Just because theorized dimensions follow the same rules doesn't mean the actual ones, if they exist, will. You're grasping. As long as a dimension follows our rules, it will also have our same paradox problems and would be subject to the same conclusion. If you want to speculate that another dimension caused our dimension, that's fine, but still, if that dimension follows our rules, you'll still have to explain that dimension in the same manner.

I'm grasping? You didn't say anything about dimensions until now, and you didn't even express the slightest knowledge of it. And... you're the one who brought up how other dimensions cause things, not me. I personally am not fond of the idea because that is another area of science where bold assumptions have to be made, and unlike you I refuse to do that.

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you perhaps reword it?

When you say that it is possible for things to not go from first to second, then please explain what other methods can it go. Second to first? Circular? Something? Anything? I don't get it, no one could.

 

[Vermanubis]

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here. From a purely set theoretic standpoint, a set is entirely described by it elements.

Then the distinction between improper and proper subsets is void. It ties into what I said about Hume's proposition that "whole" things don't exist, only their parts; the "apple" doesn't exist physically; only its properties do. The distinction between an improper and proper subset reflects that.

Let me rephrase this to see if I understand your argument correctly:

We can conceive of AC as valid; hence there is a realm in which we can conceive of it, and since AC contradicts physical laws, this realm must be non-physical.

Does this accurately reflect your position? If so, I think I can buy this as an answer to my specific objection (although I think there's still hope for the physicalist position - I'll need to reread more closely before I get into that, though).

80% of it or so, yeah.

I don't know what you're getting at, I'm not entirely sure how the unicorn point that was made by John is refuted.

You're not understanding how physicalities work. In order for something to be <represented> as he said is in and of itself a metaphysical concept. How can it represent it, yet not be it? How can it represent it without being it, in a physical world? "Sense-datum" can't explain the abstract representation of the unicorn if the unicorn doesn't physically exist.

Here: Existence is the state of something when it is physical and logical. Without both criterion being met, it simply does not exist. All things must have sense to it, and all things need to be actually there, and therefore must be physical as well. Those two criterion are existence isolated to its exact criterion, nothing else is needed.

Says who? You've got to realize how loaded the terms "logical" and "physical" are. You're defining something by your own personal definitions, which have no apparent rigor behind them. What does it mean to be in a state of "logical equanimity" and "physicality"? What qualifies something as "actually being there"? This is degenerating from technical qualifications, to existential qualifications and now to random definitions being haphazardly used. How much experience do you have with formal logical systems? The intuitive, colloquial version of "logic" doesn't cut it in these contexts, as is evidenced by your repeated fallacies and habitually conflicting positions.

We can conceive of many things if we'd like, and yet that doesn't entail existence, or else all sorts of absurd things could exist, an immense amount of things if not infinite.

If we're thinking of something that does not physically exist, but still referring to it and being able to conceive of it, e.g. counterfactuals ("if" statements), unicorns and even the subjunctive mood in language, then from where does the thought come?

Does is generate from the void?

If all things are strictly physical, then how can we conceive of unreal scenarios, and statements expressing irreality?

What about potentiality? Isn't potentiality an illusion in a deterministic universe?

Then how is it conceived? It doesn't exist, yet here we are referring to it; that necessarily entails its existence, but on a plane not necessarily physical. This should be self-evident.

And no, you cannot talk about a metaphysical mind, you have yet to make any sense of what you talk about, you don't know what it is like, how it is there, etc. Nothing can exist without the ability of people imagining it, because that means you cannot sense it in any way imaginable, and therefore there is nothing to even imagine.

This is exceptionally fallacious contention. You're discrediting my argument on a basis that you've neither succeeded in, nor attempted to prove. It's circular reasoning; you're basing your premise on an informally invalid conclusion that if something cannot be sensed, it does not exist.

Also, numbers are not metaphysical, they are ideas that can measure, you can't even isolate one of anything in existence, let alone one itself. They aren't non-physical either, they just don't exist in any form. There are no such things as metaphysical either, they just merely describe physical things. A "type of description of being" mind doesn't make sense. If you are going to use the "beyond physical" metaphysics mentioned earlier, may I remind you that you beat into the discussion you do not mean non-physical. It feels like you are cherry-picking with this non-physical and metaphysical stuff. So either you are proposing something non-physical, which you admitted to having no explanation for, or you are saying something nonsensical with metaphysics.

I never said I lacked an explanation for the metaphysical; I said I lacked a way to force you to understand the concepts at hand. And again, all of this, in its lacking of analogies, anecdotes or rhetorical questioning of any kind, is a paragraph essentially telling me that my propositions are incorrect just because. You've still yet to satisfactorily answer my questions regarding the Banach-Tarksi paradox, touching an idea, or if numbers exist in nature, and if they don't, how come? Why do humans need to be present?

I can mention a lot of things we both would agree don't exist.

This is a head-scratcher, and honestly affirms my belief that you do not understand the principle of my argument or follow what I've been saying. Were you following my positions accurately, you'd know that my position is that if it can be conceived or even mentioned, then it exists, if not physically, metaphysically. So by mentioning something, I will automatically qualify it as at least metaphysically existent. So this statement is vacuous.

Numbers are learned from us sensing more than one thing. Numbers don't even exist unless it is relative to objects for it to signify, so again they are purely symbols, and those do not exist

Then from where comes the idea of pure numbers? How is algebra possible? You obviously don't understand numbers if you believe it only involves natural numbers, as implied by your "sensing more than one thing" clause. What about imaginary numbers; the square root of one? We can't sense negative numbers; we can't sense imaginary or complex numbers, yet they yield physically meaningful results; how do you explain this?

How is the concept of imaginary numbers possible if we can't visualize them? It's very evident that they are logically sound. You've ensnared yourself in yet another tall order of profound explanations. You're faced with the burden of justifying the notion that we can only conceive what we sense and what is physical, yet imaginary and negative numbers can't physically exist and cannot be attached to physical objects, much like the Banach-Tarski paradox. I want every question in this body of text answered.

if existence was all one thing, the conception of plurality wouldn't come across to us (although the universe being one thing is absurd, but it demonstrates my point). It is like how we made human time, by labeling a measurement with a symbol such as a second or a day. The idea of numbers only came to light because of other ideas. Again, trying to coincide mathematical sense to physical sense is going to confuse you, just as you are and are thus forced to put forth something you don't even understand to answer it, is not a good idea.

Oh? How is the universe not one thing? Conversely, how is it single thing? How is one definition more valid than the other? That dual conception of wholeness and plurality is a <quintessential> facet of metaphysics.

An apple is one thing, right? If not, you concede that an apple as a whole is an abstract, synthetic categorization that does not naturally or physically exist, after all, how can something exist as both a singular thing and multiple things? Clearly you just referred to the universe as one thing by invoking it in a single word, but then maintain it's not one thing; how can it be defined as having two quantities? That's a physical impossibility. For the universe to not be one thing, and an apple to be one thing, you hold a principally contradictory stance. Both are just an arrangement of atoms, correct? You've tangled yourself in yet another web of conflicting stances borne of only an intuitive approach. Either way you go, you either contradict your stance that the universe being singular is absurd if you insist categories are nonexistent but still invoke an apple as a singular object, or you force yourself to reject the notion that an apple is singular, but therefore possesses a dual quality of plurality and conceptual singularity (since an apple is invoked as a singular object, but is contrasted to the notion that the universe being singular is absurd despite both just being a collection of atoms) which is physically impossible; physical objects cannot maintain plurality and singularity concomitantly.

It isn't a puzzle, but I myself am willing to explain things luckily for you using the method just explained. If I understand math well, better than most people, logically I should be able to explain how to people that don't know it, and that I should also be well aware of smaller things such as 1+1=2, and so on.

See above paragraph regarding my questioning of your understanding of math.

Yeah, just because he believed in them doesn't change the fact that he couldn't make sense of it either or prove anything. If I believe I am right in this conversation... does that make me right? Surely not, you believe you're right too! And interestingly, no one has been able to make sense of forms since. It is unlikely we will ever be insufficient to prove it since it doesn't exist.

That's not even close to the point. You were making an appeal to authority by saying Parmenides' subjugating Socrates' argument disproved the theory of Forms instead of just Socrates' particular argument for it.

If you think something doesn't exist it becomes impossible to prove on the assumption you are correct. Of course, you believe in things can exist without existence, but I'm still waiting for some explanation as to how something can bear both negating qualities at once.

They're only negating qualities under your self-validated premises and definitions of existence, which you've yet to proffer a valid argument for. I never said anything about existing without existence; that's how you perceive it under your premises. I speak of two different kinds of existence; not two antipodes.

Thinking entails existence. Thinking of something doesn't entail the existence of that something, only that which is thinking is proven to exist.

And <why> does thinking entail existence? Because it is acknowledgment, and is therefore existent. You do not understand the invocation of cogito ergo sum if you think it solely applies to metacognition and solipsistic contexts. The thinking of oneself isn't magically different from thinking about an apple; they both affirm existence for the same reason. The reference and mention of the thought or idea alone implies existence, otherwise you're faced with the explanation of how something nonexistent can be mentioned.

 

[frotaz37]

I think arguing about the nature of existence is kind of a hopeless endeavor. Unfortunately, cogito ergo sum is an ancient, outdated and flawed philosophy that can't be confirmed or denied without resorting to a thought process that involves little more than "Well it make sense!". Thinking doesn't prove existence unless you conclude that the definition of existence is synonymous with the ability to think.

*shrug* Descartes was a quack moron, imo.

 

[Vermanubis]

I think arguing about the nature of existence is kind of a hopeless endeavor. Unfortunately, cogito ergo sum is an ancient, outdated and flawed philosophy that can't be confirmed or denied without resorting to a thought process that involves little more than "Well it make sense!". Thinking doesn't prove existence unless you conclude that the definition of existence is synonymous with the ability to think.

*shrug* Descartes was a quack moron, imo.

Existence is never clearly defined in any of philosophy, but it is generally accepted that thought is experiential and anything involving experience that can be invoked as such as inexorably existent, if not in physical form, in conceptual form. The only real argument against it is existential qualification, which is in and of itself on shakier axiomatic ground than cogito ergo sum.

 

[frotaz37]

I understood like 2 words in that sentence.

 

[Vermanubis]

lol

Well, learning a few new words is never a bad thing.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Debates on existence make my mind go in circles and explode tbh.

 

[frotaz37]

I feel the exact same way.
It's a completely hopeless debate.

I mean I hate to sound like Charles Holland Duell, but everything that can be discovered about existence through debate has been discovered already.

The rest is up to science.

*switches major*

 

[john!]

i was going to quote duell, except you already namedropped him

 

[Levingy]

Please don't make this mistake. The issue isn't about things that science doesn't know yet. It's about things that science CAN'T know. What will we do when science, inevitably, faces a unknown that cannot be known (through science)? It's not jumping to God whenever science hasn't explained, it's jumping to God when science literally cannot explain. Like Vermanubis said, it is absolutely foolish to idly accept unknowns especially when it's evident that there will be things that science can't explain. I don't use God as an explanation for all the things I don't understand, I use it as an explanation for the things that I know my human perception of reality cannot grasp.

There are infinite amount of possible explanations to the unknown things we or science doesn't or maybe even can't ( you can't really know this) ever explain. Why, from all of them, you have to jump to God? What implies, that it has to be God? Yeah it fills some holes for you, but how many holes does it really generate when you take it? People are just settled with those holes, because it's the all-mighty God, who has his ways, perhaps? I think people jump to God because when doing so they allow themself to be satisfied with the issue and with the holes it brings. It's an easy explanation that people have just randomly generated in their mind imo.

 

[Browny]

Please don't make this mistake. The issue isn't about things that science doesn't know yet. It's about things that science CAN'T know. What will we do when science, inevitably, faces a unknown that cannot be known (through science)? It's not jumping to God whenever science hasn't explained, it's jumping to God when science literally cannot explain. Like Vermanubis said, it is absolutely foolish to idly accept unknowns especially when it's evident that there will be things that science can't explain. I don't use God as an explanation for all the things I don't understand, I use it as an explanation for the things that I know my human perception of reality cannot grasp.

dem unknown unknowns, they'll get 'ya.

also MuraRengan, thats quite a... biased way, to look at it. There is only really one thing that determines our ability to understand anything in this world; time. There is ONE excepion; what a woman wants when giving you the silent treatment. Seriously though, I'm sure 1000 years ago people would have looked at things and gone 'my human perception of reality will never be able to grasp this concept'. Such things as Lightning or why the tides go up and down. It was so far beyond anyones comprehension; it would take milleniums until people could figure it out.

As time goes on, the supernatural explanation for the nature of the universe, decreases. it may only take a few hundreds years from now, but things that you are unable to even grasp how it is possible by the laws of physics such as cold fusion, might be extremely obvious and simple, in the exact same way that we look at lightning and know exactly what it is while people of the past had no idea at all.

Time owns all. If you even try to justify certain events of the universe as being impossible to ever understand, you are engaging in a pointless exercise. You will never prove it right and no one will ever prove you wrong. The only constant is that as time increases, the likelihood of being proven wrong, increases.

 

[Dre89]

science operates using inductive proof. the vast majority of arguments presented in favor of god are deductive arguments. they are two different methods of proof. just because you use a deductive argument doesn't mean that you don't understand science.

in response to the second paragraph that you just added in:

- just because god has some different properties from phenomena in our universe doesn't mean that he is not observable.

- why would an intelligent theist think that god didn't exist just because he had the potential to be observed?

If God was observable, then his ontological properties would be too similar to observable phenomena, meaning there would be no point in saying he is necessary, because he would be the same observable phenomena.

The reason why intelligent theists say God is necessary is because they say observable phenomena needs to be caused by something with entirely different ontological properties. So saying God has similar ontological properties to the phenomena he is being said to cause is like saying an egg needs and cause, and saying that the cause is another egg. But the egg that causes then has the same problem as the egg it caused.

God could be observable in that an action of his (eg. a miracle, or creating a human version of himself) could be observed, but his original form wouldn't be observable, because then it wouldn't really be a God. At best it'd be a God with proerties similar to what it causes, which has the problem I showed in the last paragraph.

And I don't understand why people feel the need to come in here and say that these discussions are pointless, especially because I guarantee most of these people aren't educated in the topic. It's not as if we're going to stop discussing it because you say so, so I don't understand what these people intend to contribute to the thread. Unless you're educated in the topic, and can provide an insightful argument as to why the discussion is non-cognitive, you're just like creationists who say science is a pointless study, because they're not educated in it and it conflicts with their beliefs.

 

[GwJ]

Debates on existence make my mind go in circles and explode tbh.

That's because they're severely over thinking the topic. This refers to almost the entire discussion here, not just the little bit you mentioned.

 

[Theftz22]

This is a head-scratcher, and honestly affirms my belief that you do not understand the principle of my argument or follow what I've been saying. Were you following my positions accurately, you'd know that my position is that if it can be conceived or even mentioned, then it exists, if not physically, metaphysically. So by mentioning something, I will automatically qualify it as at least metaphysically existent. So this statement is vacuous.

I just happened to read this bit. If your theory of existence includes the existence of square circles, in my view that is a reductio of your theory.

 

[The Star King]

Sorry if I repeat spmething already said, since I only really only read the OP, but

Religion claims God has always existed. Science claims that matter (and energy) has always existed. You talk about the dilemma of infinite time and energy always being there, but I don't understand how religion has an advantage in this regard. Sure, you can say that God created it all - but then you have to ask yourself where God comes from.

In addition, you can't just assume that because modern science can't explain something, God must be behind it. That's been a common way of thinking throughout religion in general. A great example is the Greeks - they use their mythology to explain scientific phenomenon they don't understand. "Oh, we have winters because Persephone goes to the Underworld 3 months a year. Oh, lightning is just the weapon of the Sky God, Zeus." And when they used dieties to explain the life around them, did they end up being right?