The Transcendental Argument for God

301. Comment #88204 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 15, 2007 at 10:27 am

Steve99 (post 188 or #87391):

I was discussing worldviews that posit that fundamental reality is physical, which is not what Chalmers is proposing. Rather he is proposing a dualistic ontology in which both physical matter and conscious experience are fundamental. So that's a different case.

I know it is a different case. That is my point. You are trying to show flaws in a naturalistic viewpoint in order to justify a theistic viewpoint.

I am not trying to show flaws in all naturalistic theories. I am not comparing atheism in general with naturalism in general because each of these two basic ontological commitments covers too many different theories of reality, and indeed some of the better naturalistic theories may well work better than some of the worse theistic theories. So I am specifically comparing idealistic theism, which is my ontological belief system, with scientific naturalism, which is Dawkins's, and which moreover is amply documented in the various books he has written and in his many public appearances. And in this context I have pointed out (in post #87018) that scientific naturalism presents some problems which do not exist in idealistic theism. So, frankly, when I am criticizing Dawkins's worldview of scientific naturalism your continuous attempts to drag into the discussion other worldviews, such as Chalmer's dualism or even religious ontologies such a Buddhism's, are, again, red herrings. Let's stick to the issue of which theory is more reasonable, idealistic theism or scientific realism. Unless that is you wish to describe what your own ontological belief system is (something you have never done, keeping the agnostic stance of "I don't know") in which case, if you wish, we might compare your theory about reality to idealistic theism. But until then I would like to keep our discussion focused on whether idealistic theism or scientific naturalism is more reasonable, without diversions.

And what other people say is the proof of what's objective?

No, it is evidence for what's objective.

I strongly disagree and I am surprised you would claim that. What people say is not evidence of what is objectively true. After all, by definition, something is objectively true if it is independent of what people believe. Actually, what people say is not even very strong evidence about what they believe.

But what other people say is the very antithesis of objectivity: something is supposed to be objectively true independently of peoples' opinion.

Indeed. And we get hints about what is objective by finding out what people say that is consistent, so indicating what is independent of viewpoint. It isn't proof - it is evidence.

Perhaps you are confused and conflate the idea of corroboration with the idea of what people say. That a claim can be independently corroborated is indeed evidence that it is objective. That a claim can be independently corroborated means that you can personally find out by seeing with your own eyes as it where.

Finally what proof do you have that other people objectively exist in the first place?

All these questions! But you are the one making the claims, not me. You claim that God exists, is perfectly good and so on.

Right. And I justified these beliefs partially on propositions I find obviously true, such as that some ethical precepts are objectively true. But you rejected my accepting propositions just because I find them obvious, and challenged me "to prove" them. So, in post #87476 I in turned challenged you to prove something you strongly believe in, such as that the Statue of Liberty objectively exists. Your answer was that people consistently say that the Statue of Liberty objectively exists, which is not quite true as, for example, I don't believe that it objectively exists and openly say so. And even if literally all people believed that that the Statue of Liberty objectively exists it would not amount even to good evidence, as there are a lot of cases where what all people believed turned out to be wrong – as you yourself in other contexts like to point out.

If you had studied a little philosophy you wouldn't walk so easily into this kind of conceptual minefields Steve. The kind of philosophy one gets from reading TGD or similar books is very naive as you'll find out if you read some academic philosophy; books on naturalism written by atheist philosophers are especially illuminating. The issues are really not as simple as Dawkins paints them, and I suppose Dawkins too is getting some education by taking part or watching debates with more knowledgeable theists than the typical fundamentalist simpleton he apparently imagines represents all theism has to offer. To believe in God is clearly not comparable to believing in fairies, as Dawkins thinks. And contrary to what many an atheist believes there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, as evidenced by the very same TGD which makes a heroic and cocksure effort to respond to part of that evidence.

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you should be allowed to get away with claiming that, without having to provide evidence, because 'we can't prove anything'?

This is really resorting to playground logic...

"God exists"
"Show me"
"I don't need to because you can't prove anything ... Nyahh!"

Ah, but it seems to me here you are grossly misrepresenting me. What's happening is rather like this:

- Idealistic theism works better than scientific naturalism as a theory of reality.
- Show me.
- Here.
- No there's a bit there that is based on what you think is obvious so it doesn't count.
- Here's some more.
- No, prove it.
- Well, I can't prove it, but it is good evidence.
- No, because you are not convincing us.
- Here's some more evidence.
- No, you simply don't understand science, neither math, nor logic.
- Here's some more.
- No, you believe in the resurrection of Jesus which shows that no matter what you say you are just another creationist, and creationists have it all wrong.
- Here's some more.
- Doesn't work; Buddhism is atheistic too.

You think Steve I am here trying to convince you or anybody else; in fact I am here in part to see how atheists would respond to my arguments. And so far I am underwhelmed. It seems that unless an atheist confronts an uneducated fundamentalist they can't make a good case, and sometimes stoop down to ad hominem (and I am not implying that you did so).

There is nothing that comes close to proving that the moon objectively exists Steve. There isn't even a good probabilistic argument that the moon objectively exists. But I can understand that people who take their philosophy from reading TGD are unaware of that.

Sorry, this doesn't work in your favour. If you claim that there is a problem with knowing what objectively exists, then you are in no position to claim that objective ethics exists.

It's true that it is difficult to find out what objectively exists. That's why the better method is to compare one to one different beliefs systems about what objectively exists. That's much easier, and indeed I find that when one compares idealistic theism with scientific realism the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the former. I think one of the reasons this method works so well is because it right away strips the popular kind of atheism that Dawkins epitomizes from two of its main talking points which manage to confuse so many people: that all theistic theories of reality are incompatible with science, and that all theistic theories of reality must be based on the Bible.

Also, you need to stop being so bitchy about what you believe is in TGD, as you have clearly shown you have misread it. As in the examples of claiming that Dawkins is against all ideas of a Creator (only unevolved ones), and claiming that complex things can't "just be" (they can, but that is no evidence for a more complex creator).

The TGD explicitly sets out to prove that the probability of *all* creator Gods is very low. But you are right that Dawkins's very weak "Ultimate 747" argument works only against the concept of an unevolved God. (That his argument is very weak is widely recognized, and I have noticed that no atheists use this argument in their recent debates with theists). Finally, I fail to understand your last sentence above. You appear to be saying that complex things can "just be", but for some unspecified reason a complex God cannot "just be".

If you were simply an idealistic theist, I might have some slight sympathy for your views.

In the context of this debate I don't wish for your sympathy, slight or not. What I wish for are some stronger counterarguments.

The problem is, you have to add all that extra magic [of Jesus's resurretin].

Forget about my belief in Jesus's resurrection, that's a red herring. This particular and tentative belief of mine, i.e. that the closest disciples of Jesus did have some remarkably realistic experiences of Jesus after his crucifixion, has nothing to do with my main claim that idealistic theism works better than scientific realism. The correct understanding of how reality is goes far beyond what a few particular people exactly experienced two thousand years ago in ancient Palestine. The correct understanding of how reality is – that is something extraterrestrials who know nothing about the Earth, not to mention about Jesus, may right now be debating too.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

302. Comment #88211 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 11:02 am

So, frankly, when I am criticizing Dawkins's worldview of scientific naturalism your continuous attempts to drag into the discussion other worldviews, such as Chalmer's dualism or even religious ontologies such a Buddhism's, are, again, red herrings. Let's stick to the issue of which theory is more reasonable, idealistic theism or scientific realism.

No. This is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You can debate what you like. I don't have to play by your rules of setting up idealistic theism as the alternative. I don't have to play with your theistic toys. I have lots of alternatives.

I strongly disagree and I am surprised you would claim that. What people say is not evidence of what is objectively true. After all, by definition, something is objectively true if it is independent of what people believe. Actually, what people say is not even very strong evidence about what they believe.

I disagree with just about every sentence in this. Except for the 'surprised you would claim it'. By now, you should not be surprised that I claim things you don't believe.

Perhaps you are confused and conflate the idea of corroboration with the idea of what people say.

Of course I do. Evidence that only an individual sees is only evidence of what an individual sees. We get evidence for what is objective by asking others opinions, such as 'did you see that too?'.

That a claim can be independently corroborated means that you can personally find out by seeing with your own eyes as it where.

No, it doesn't. That may be possible, but it is not necessary.

Right. And I justified these beliefs partially on propositions I find obviously true, such as that some ethical precepts are objectively true.

No. What happened is you failed to justify them. You don't get to justify things by just claiming you have.

If you had studied a little philosophy you wouldn't walk so easily into this kind of conceptual minefields Steve.

This from someone who uses 'it is obvious' as evidence, and makes major errors like a misunderstanding of complexity and abstraction. You fall into conceptual minefields all the time, so you are really in no position to criticise others.

- Idealistic theism works better than scientific naturalism as a theory of reality.
- Show me.
- Here.
- No there's a bit there that is based on what you think is obvious so it doesn't count.
- Here's some more.
- No, prove it.
- Well, I can't prove it, but it is good evidence.
- No, because you are not convincing us.
- Here's some more evidence.
- No, you simply don't understand science, neither math, nor logic.
- Here's some more.
- No, you believe in the resurrection of Jesus which shows that no matter what you say you are just another creationist, and creationists have it all wrong.
- Here's some more.
- Doesn't work; Buddhism is atheistic too.

Ok, I have no objection most to that.

The thing is, it really us up to you back your claims. If you fail to convince us through what you claim is good evidence, but which we don't, that is your problem. All that dialogue shows is that you simply haven't provided what people call evidence. What is true about the above is that you keep saying 'here is more evidence'. That does not mean you were actually presenting any.

Don't forget that you have been shown to be prey to fundamental logical and a scientific and philosophical flaws. What you seem to think is evidence is simply not acceptable by anyone with reasonable philosophical or scientific experience.

You think Steve I am here trying to convince you or anybody else; in fact I am here in part to see how atheists would respond to my arguments. And so far I am underwhelmed.

You have had thousands of responses, dealing with every detail of what you claim. We have gone over every single point time and time again. We have even ignored you pressing the 'reset' button again and again and apparently forgetting past conversations.

And you claim you are underwhelmed?

It's true that it is difficult to find out what objectively exists. That's why the better method is to compare one to one different beliefs systems about what objectively exists.

No, that is not what one should do. One should start with the simplest set of ideas combined with skepticism.

That's much easier, and indeed I find that when one compares idealistic theism with scientific realism the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the former.

No, you don't find that, because, as we have shown, your assumptions are mostly wrong, such as your understanding of complexity and abstraction.

In the context of this debate I don't wish for your sympathy, slight or not. What I wish for are some stronger counterarguments.

(I am not sure you understood the use of the 'sympathy' idiom here. It meant 'acceptance', as in 'acceptance of views'.)

Just about every foundation for your beliefs have been shown to be flawed. How could you possibly need any further stronger counterarguments?

But anyway, this should not be about counterarguments. You are the proposer of ideas. This should be about evidence for the ideas. You are attempting to switch the emphasis away from you.

Forget about my belief in Jesus's resurrection, that's a red herring. This particular and tentative belief of mine, i.e. that the closest disciples of Jesus did have some remarkably realistic experiences of Jesus after his crucifixion, has nothing to do with my main claim that idealistic theism works better than scientific realism.

I am afraid I have trouble accepting this. It shows how profoundly mistaken your approach is. Start with a Christian set of beliefs and compare them with other worldviews, and see if they are better. Well, the problem is that unless you are honestly prepared to pare down your beliefs to a rational magic-free subset, your views are going to be tainted by a desire to bend rules.

The problem is you claim to be promoting a viewpoint which is entirely compatible with science. Assuming Jesus's resurrection does not seem to me to be compatible with that.

Other Comments by steve99

303. Comment #88213 by epeeist on November 15, 2007 at 11:11 am

Comment #88204 by Dianelos Georgoudis

And in this context I have pointed out (in post #87018) that scientific naturalism presents some problems which do not exist in idealistic theism.

Because naturalism is a work in progress while theistic idealism is an ideology, alternatively (to misquote Marian Moore) it is a theory "which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt"

In the context of this debate I don't wish for your sympathy, slight or not. What I wish for are some stronger counterarguments.

You are joking! Your "arguments" have been severely trashed. All you keep doing is pressing the reset button every time something comes up that you can't deal with.

Your "idealistic theism" is empty of all explanatory power. It is a Linus style security blanket that you are afraid to let go of.

Other Comments by epeeist

304. Comment #88218 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 15, 2007 at 11:41 am

Steve99 (post 190 or #87393):

Yes and, as I said already, by the same measure idealistic theism too predicts that the orbits of planets can be calculated only using current theories of gravity, and no additional fact will need to be invoked, such as the objective existence of gravity, or of the physical universe for that matter.

Great. So this proves my point. There is no evidence that distinguishes idealistic theism from scientific naturalism. So in that case, I go for the simpler solution. The one without added 'God'.

I really don't see how the realization that scientific knowledge offers no advantage to scientific naturalism when one compares it to idealistic theism somehow works in favor of your position Steve. After all virtually all atheists believe as an article of faith that theism and science are fundamentally opposed. Actually my claim is that science offers idealistic theism an advantage, as evidenced by the fact that the scientific discoveries (particularly in physics) in the last 100 years have forced naturalists to drop one after the other many of their most strongly believed intuitions about how objective reality is, have created some sore spots as how to account for the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants, and have resulted in the development of an ever increasing number of desperately incompatible naturalistic description of reality, not to mention come perilously close to rendering scientific naturalism incoherent in all its guises. I don't wish to reopen that latter can of worms, as that claim is too strong for comfort even for me, but if the reader wants to see what I mean, post #75753 is a possible starting point about this issue.

As for the simplicity card you are playing, two things: Simplicity is not the final word; even if scientific naturalism were simpler than idealistic theism there are many other advantages of the latter. But scientific naturalism is not simpler than idealistic theism. First of all, as I have repeatedly explained, it's not like "idealistic theism = scientific naturalism + God". In fact, both scientific naturalism and idealistic theism are monistic theories of reality, i.e. theories that postulate that ultimately reality consists of only one kind of thing. Scientific naturalism postulates that ultimately reality consists of matter following mechanical laws, whereas idealistic theism postulates that ultimately reality consists of conscious experience following personal will. And when one compares idealistic theism to even the simplest possible descriptions of a physical reality as understood by scientific naturalism, it turns out that the former is much simpler than the latter (see the rough but rather conclusive calculations in the latter part of post #55061). So maybe it's a good thing that simplicity is not the last word :-)

Incidentally, Steve, I see that you often respond to a post of mine only a few minutes after I posted it. Why such a hurry? Don't you think it would be better and take some time and think before responding?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

305. Comment #88221 by BMMcArdle on November 15, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Dianelos,
Thank you for your last reply.
In your calculations in post #55061, are you saying that God is only responsible for the conscious experience of the 6 billion people on Earth?
Wouldn't God's side include everything in the universe+humanity's conscious experience+God him/her/itself?
Oops, I forgot, there is nothing but our conscious? experience and God.
Can you explain why you think you think?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

306. Comment #88230 by Diacanu on November 15, 2007 at 1:30 pm

DG-

as evidenced by the fact that the scientific discoveries (particularly in physics) in the last 100 years have forced naturalists to drop one after the other many of their most strongly believed intuitions about how objective reality is,

You said this crap before, and I asked you to back it up, and you ignored me.

I say again.

BACK IT UP.

Other Comments by Diacanu

307. Comment #88231 by Diacanu on November 15, 2007 at 1:32 pm

DG-

idealistic theism postulates that ultimately reality consists of conscious experience following personal will.

Prove it.

Other Comments by Diacanu

308. Comment #88241 by epeeist on November 15, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Comment #88218 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Actually my claim is that science offers idealistic theism an advantage, as evidenced by the fact that the scientific discoveries (particularly in physics) in the last 100 years have forced naturalists to drop one after the other many of their most strongly believed intuitions about how objective reality is, have created some sore spots as how to account for the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants

Ah, fine tuning - the last resort of the fundamentalist.

DG - for the last time scientific theories are contingent, some of them are wrong. Some are incomplete, some don't account for the accuracy we can now measure things (see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 for the accuracy of relativity) or for the amount of new data that we now have. The sheer amount of compute power we have now has allowed us to routinely do calculations that could not have been undertaken 100 years ago. It is hardly surprising that we have discovered a lot of new things, and many preconceptions have had to go. This is the way science works. At least we don't have the arrogance and hubris that you and other theists have to claim a direct line to something deeper and more correct.

As for the simplicity card you are playing, two things: Simplicity is not the final word; even if scientific naturalism were simpler than idealistic theism there are many other advantages of the latter. But scientific naturalism is not simpler than idealistic theism. First of all, as I have repeatedly explained, it's not like "idealistic theism = scientific naturalism + God".

On reflection Steve probably used the wrong word, parsimony would have been better. Your theistic idealism "hypothesis" fails to either explain anything or be parsimonious. Quite honestly, it is (to use a local expression) about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

You claim to be a software engineer. You should know that a piece of software is not complete until you have taken away everything that is unnecessary.

I don't know what you are still doing here, you have failed to demonstrate any benefit of idealistic theism over naturalism, you have failed to demonstrate that there is such a thing as objective morality or how you recognise it if you tripped over it.

The things you have demonstrated is a poor grasp of science, of the philosophy of science, of statistics and of logic. You have shown little knowledge of philosophy outside of a specific small area.

Worst of all you have the effrontery to continue repeating the same vacuous assertions in thread after thread as though nobody had criticised you for them.

Other Comments by epeeist

309. Comment #88250 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Epeeist:

On reflection Steve probably used the wrong word, parsimony would have been better.

Indeed.

You claim to be a software engineer. You should know that a piece of software is not complete until you have taken away everything that is unnecessary.

As a software engineer in my current job, the situation is even more appropriate. One of the most successful current development techniques is called 'agile'. It suggest you start with the minimum, and no more. You then work up based on evidence of need.

Danielos:

I really don't see how the realization that scientific knowledge offers no advantage to scientific naturalism when one compares it to idealistic theism somehow works in favor of your position Steve.

Actually, if you were being honest, you would admit you do. It is unquestionable. Scientific naturalism implies that there are only simple laws. Idealistic theism implies that there is a God simulating a world which appears to have simple laws. As anyone who has written simulation software (like me) can tell you, the simulator is far more complicated that that which is simulated. Therefore, simple laws is more parsimonious than God simulating simple laws.

and have resulted in the development of an ever increasing number of desperately incompatible naturalistic description of reality,

If anything shows how you have no understanding of modern science and its implications and philosophy, this does.

There are indeed different descriptions of reality like quantum mechanics. But these different descriptions co-exist for the precise opposite reason to that you give. The descriptions co-exist because they are all compatible. If they were 'desperately incompatible', then by definition they could not co-exist. This single statement alone marks you out as unqualified to criticise anyone else for failures of understanding logic or philosophy.

After all virtually all atheists believe as an article of faith that theism and science are fundamentally opposed.

No. The majority of atheists are Buddhists. You are trying to use terms to fit what you want again. Naughty.

First of all, as I have repeatedly explained, it's not like "idealistic theism = scientific naturalism + God". In fact, both scientific naturalism and idealistic theism are monistic theories of reality, i.e. theories that postulate that ultimately reality consists of only one kind of thing.

Yes. But the scientific naturalism is more parsimonious. It does not require an infinite mind.

And when one compares idealistic theism to even the simplest possible descriptions of a physical reality as understood by scientific naturalism, it turns out that the former is much simpler than the latter (see the rough but rather conclusive calculations in the latter part of post #55061).

No, actually. Physical reality as described scientific naturalism looks like it can be fit by just a few equations. Your Big Magic Man would require an awful lot of parameters to describe him.

Incidentally, Steve, I see that you often respond to a post of mine only a few minutes after I posted it. Why such a hurry? Don't you think it would be better and take some time and think before responding?

Nice ad hominem there mate!

I don't need to think that much, as you go over the same old stuff like a stuck record. It is a boring tune I hear from you, and I know it by heart.

Anyway, before I give up on this thread, as I have given up on others, let me finally deal with what you want me to. Scientific naturalism versus idealistic theism, and let's see what you, as an idealistic theist salesman have to offer.

Here I am with scientific naturalism. It has worked wonders we have used it to explore the universe like no other approach. It has provided increasingly powerful and easy to understand and useful explanations for the world.

It has few assumptions. These include that Nature follows laws that apply universally. It does not really distinguish between 'natural' and 'supernatural' - everything is just phenomena that can be studied through experiment.

So, what do you have on the table to offer me?

Well, your theism comes in five parts, each of which require additional funding from my incredulity credit card.

Part one. Consciousness is a problem for naturalism, and it is a separate thing.

Part two. Conciousness is the raw material of reality, and there isn't really anything else.

Part three. Somehow all this consciousness makes up a personality called God.

Part four. Certain ideas like objective ethics are true, because of this God (through an unspecified mechanism).

Part five. This god isn't just deist, but interacts with reality and does miraculous things.


OK. So if I am going to buy, I need convincing.

Part one. Dualism. Well, perhaps. This is a matter of intense philosophical debate. As it is a matter of debate, you are in no position to claim it as either obvious or a fact. However, for now, I will concede it.

Part two. Idealism. Well, this relies on one. Makes it a bit dodgy. I am less keen to buy, after all, what does it offer me? You claim there is no experimental difference detectable to science. So, it offers me no benefit at all (except perhaps as a foundation for the other parts). Not keen to buy this, but let's go on.

Part three. Well, this is a bit odd, as it does not seem to give me anything. You claim this God is good, but then you claim it is unknowable, so it makes no difference. Sorry, no benefits.

Part four. You claim that these ethics are objective, but you also claim we can't be sure of them. So it makes no difference. No benefits here either then.

Part five. Oh come off it! This would not only cost far too much in terms of incredulity, but it directly challenges the scientific naturalism that has been so useful.


So, you haven't managed to sell me idealistic theism.

So, what is wrong about your sales technique?

1. It rejects rational argument, by misusing science and logic (as in a misunderstanding of reification).

2. It uses Humpty-Dumpty-ism, by redefining words to mean what you want them to, such as 'atheism', and 'naturalism'.

3. It is full of ad-hominem attacks (such as on Dawkins), rather than actual arguments against positions.

4. You try to use the same sales pitch again and again, no matter how often we say 'no'.

5. You falsely describe competitors' products, by twisting what they offer (such as my trusty scientific naturalism).

6. You falsely claim your product is the only alternative to what I am using.

7. You try to make me believe your product is good, by rubbishing what I am using, which isn't going to work, as I am happy with what I have got. You need to sell better than that.

8. You are trying to sell your product by insulting the customer (we don't understand enough philosophy to realise the quality)

9. You keep trying to sell us attachments to your product that you claim add value even though you admit you can't see how they actually work, or even if they do (such as objective ethics).

10. You give us false references for your product, by selectively quoting the few reviews that seem to back you.

11. If a claim of yours about your product is shown to be wrong, you have admitted you will just bluff your way around rather than admit it (such as if the body of Christ was found, you would just waffle Behe-style "ah, but God make the disciples believe in the resurrection".

12. You try and bluff us with begging-the-question sales talk like 'Given that my product is better than yours, which I find obvious, you should buy it". Sorry, but I am not that naive.

Sorry, Dianelos. Your sales technique has failed. I recognise it. I don't buy from Creationists. You are wasting your time with me.


Other Comments by steve99

310. Comment #88264 by steve99 on November 15, 2007 at 4:18 pm

You said this crap before, and I asked you to back it up, and you ignored me.

I know how you feel...

The thing is, Dianelos lies, but subtly. When he says 'naturalists one by one' have 'dropped' something, he is being deliberately misleading. What he means is that he has found one or two scientists who seem to say something that he likes. There was a superb demonstration of how he gets this wrong recently when he attempted to claim that Einstein did not believe he was studying physical reality....

I am afraid there is no reasoning with Dianelos. All you can do is post as if you are reasoning, in an attempt at damage control, so that others realise the flaws in his arguments. You have contributed well to that, and don't let his lack of response or deliberate misinterpretations get to you - it is a well-known Creationist trick.

Other Comments by steve99

311. Comment #88312 by epeeist on November 16, 2007 at 12:04 am

I have to agree with DG that naturalism is in crisis, I have just come across the following headlines:

Plane sailors in crisis! - Eratosthenes shows the world is spherical, not flat.

Epicyclists in a spin! - Copernicus then Kepler describe Earth going round the sun in an ellipse.

Embarrasment for Astrologers! - Galileo's telescope reveals more stars than in their constellations, he is sent to his room in disgrace.

Musicians in furore! - Willard Gibbs shows it is impossible to play the Perpetuem Mobile from Haydn's "Lark" quartet.

Puss in Boots Bereft! - When Pasteur demonstrates that mice don't spontaneously form from wheat and old rags in a warm dark closet.

Ghost hunters in a Quandry! - Clark-Maxwell demonstrates disembodied field.

Bruce Willis in Flop! - the Fifth Element (phlostigon) described as "completely negative" by Lavoisier.

Lord gets Heated! - Earth shown to be older than 10 million years to Kelvin's chagrin.

Jeremy Clarkson in Incident! - Einstein shows there is a limit to how fast he can go.

Downturn in Dessert Market! - Schrodinger and Heisenberg show it is impossible to make perfectly smooth custard.

Other Comments by epeeist

312. Comment #88314 by clodhopper on November 16, 2007 at 12:35 am

Proposition 1: No sales = no xmas bonus
Proposition 2: god explains everything and predicts nothing

both contingent on performance review figures.

Other Comments by clodhopper

313. Comment #88316 by jonjermey on November 16, 2007 at 12:53 am

This seems to be an argument of the following form:

I will string together a lot of poorly-defined words and phrases to make a meaningless assertion. I will then claim that if you understood this assertion my conclusion would be self-evident.

You will attempt to interpret this assertion and I will tell you you're misunderstanding it.

Repeat until one or both of us gets bored.

It's sad that so many people have wasted so much time on it.

Other Comments by jonjermey

314. Comment #88321 by epeeist on November 16, 2007 at 1:34 am

Just as a matter of interest I came across this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml

It uses the E8 Lie group, works in 3 spacelike and one timelike dimension and predicts 20 undiscovered particles.

Just waiting for DG to claim that it is yet another crisis in naturalism.

Other Comments by epeeist

315. Comment #88323 by clodhopper on November 16, 2007 at 1:46 am

Comment #88316 by jonjermey

It's sad that so many people have wasted so much time on it.

No one can say people here have not allowed DG a fair crack at the whip. He has had both courtesy and the courtiers response in equal measure. People have had the opportunity to look at some "sophisticated" theist agurments in detail and seen them refuted in equal detail....repeatedly. Patience will wear ever thinner the more the rewind button is hit.

Other Comments by clodhopper

316. Comment #88325 by epeeist on November 16, 2007 at 1:58 am

Comment #88323 by clodhopper

No one can say people here have not allowed DG a fair crack at the whip.

Total agreement

Patience will wear ever thinner the more the rewind button is hit.

Also agreed, the trouble is that he is a serial spammer. Every time you see a thread in which he has made an initial post it contains the same set of claims, as though they had never been subject to criticism.

Other Comments by epeeist

317. Comment #88326 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 2:33 am

Epeeist (post 196 or #87465):

(A metal can be any alloy, and there is an unlimited number of different alloys which sometimes have wildly different properties, and that's why this proposition cannot be falsified even though it's clearly scientific.)

A distinct case of equivocation. You said "metal" not "alloy" or "metallic alloy".

Actually this is a distinct case of splitting hairs, as most people would agree that bronze is a metal. According to Webster's dictionary a definition of Metal (noun) is: "A mixture containing two or more metallic elements or metallic and nonmetallic elements usually fused together or dissolving into each other when molten".

While the latter two are not falsifiable, the former is.

Right, and that was my point: Contrary to what many people think not all scientific propositions are falsifiable.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

318. Comment #88328 by epeeist on November 16, 2007 at 2:50 am

Comment #88326 by Dianelos Georgoudis

According to Webster's dictionary a definition of Metal (noun) is: "A mixture containing two or more metallic elements or metallic and nonmetallic elements usually fused together or dissolving into each other when molten".

That would be an alloy, for metal see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal.

Do you want me to post links to mine and my wife's papers to show that we actually have worked in physics/chemistry to show we have a clue as to what we are talking about.

And if it isn't falsifiable (at least in principle), then it doesn't count as science.

Other Comments by epeeist

319. Comment #88330 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 3:03 am

Epeeist (post 198 or #87478):

:-) One word does not make an argument no matter how loud it's shouted. You like being cryptic and dropping hints instead of presenting a case – but hey, suit yourself. It seems a common tactic of the atheistic mindset is to try not to expose itself (e.g. atheism is only a lack of belief, atheism is not a belief system, lack of beliefs cannot motivate people to act badly, atheism being a negative proposition does not have the burden of proof, I "don't know" how objective reality is so I don't have to divulge my thoughts about it, etc).

Well, maybe that's a smart tactic; maybe atheists deep down do realize that atheism is rather problematic so it's better to avoid making explicit how they think. I must say though that to their merit many atheists here, including Steve99 and Dr Benway, did not follow that tactic. And to their merit New Atheism authors have gone out and debated theists. It will be interesting to observe if they will continue doing such debates in the future, for at the very least one thing that these debates have clearly evidenced is that theism is not as moronic as they have been insisting in their books. Finally I would like to warmly commend this very website of Dawkins: it's very instructive and open; probably the best place to find out what's happening in this area as well as how atheists think.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

320. Comment #88332 by epeeist on November 16, 2007 at 3:42 am

Comment #88330 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Nice try DG - ad hominem, straw man, begging the question, hasty generalisation and all in one paragraph.

Other Comments by epeeist

321. Comment #88333 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 am

Irate_atheist (post 200 or #87484):

You have still not offered your evidence that the moon (or even simpler: the Statue of Liberty) objectively exists.

OK, we'll stand by and watch as you jump off the top of the statue. Objectively speaking, it's reasonable to assume that we'll walk away, once again having witnessed the effects of gravity in action, and you won't walk away at all.

Yes, well, I did not ask for evidence that actions of gravity affect us, but for evidence that the Moon or the Statue of Liberty objectively exist.

Obviously there can't be any such evidence, unless one first assumes that the physical universe objectively exists, which is an arbitrary assumption which begs the question. Here is why there can't be such evidence: Assume that reality is how I describe it, namely God directly causing our experiences of the physical universe, without the benefit of an actual objective universe being there. Assume reality is like this. Then, no matter how deeply we study the physical laws present in our experience of the physical universe, no matter how many measurements of the moon's orbit we make, no matter how exactly we measure the weight of the Statue of Liberty, no matter how many people we ask for their opinion, no matter how often we actually bang our heads against the cold metal of the Statue of Liberty – even if all humanity would start doing nothing but collecting objective data about the moon and the Statue of Liberty until all the libraries overflow with that information: it will all not amount to even weak evidence that the moon or the Statue of Liberty objectively exist, because in fact they don't under the assumption made. So unless one assumes that the physical universe objectively exists there can't be any evidence whatsoever for the objective existence of the moon or of the Statue of Liberty. I hope you can see that.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

322. Comment #88339 by Timnea on November 16, 2007 at 5:05 am

Dianelos

God directly causing our experiences of the physical universe, without the benefit of an actual objective universe being there

Assuming what you've said above, if god causes our experiences in the physical universe why does he kill thousands of men, women and children with earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It all seems a bit sadistic to summon them up if they're not actually objectively there in the first place. He must be causing us to experience these disasters followed by our own suffering and deaths. Looks like we have just proved a compassionate, merciful or loving god doesn't exist.

Other Comments by Timnea

323. Comment #88340 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:09 am

maybe atheists deep down do realize that atheism is rather problematic

if we are wrong we go to hell, oh dear, well at least I will KNOW i was wrong, i think i'll be at least be able to hold my head up unlike the opposite situation where if the theist is wrong then they wont be able to hold up their head as they wont be there to do it. the theist will never know they were wrong if they are, but i will, maybe i just enjoy dancing with pain.

Then, no matter how deeply we study the physical laws present in our experience of the physical universe, no matter how many measurements of the moon's orbit we make, no matter how exactly we measure the weight of the Statue of Liberty, no matter how many people we ask for their opinion, no matter how often we actually bang our heads against the cold metal of the Statue of Liberty – even if all humanity would start doing nothing but collecting objective data about the moon and the Statue of Liberty until all the libraries overflow with that information: it will all not amount to even weak evidence that the moon or the Statue of Liberty objectively exist, because in fact they don't under the assumption made. So unless one assumes that the physical universe objectively exists there can't be any evidence whatsoever for the objective existence of the moon or of the Statue of Liberty. I hope you can see that.

we can all see that but in a way that is rather like imagining winning the lottery, being independent for the rest of ones life surrounded by luxuries then reawaken to realise you just burnt yor arm on that damn burger cooking hotplate, flip burger, flip, flip, flip.....

im finding this theism/naturalism thing isnt getting me anywhere, im going to read up on something a little more 'earthy'....evolution!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

324. Comment #88341 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 5:10 am

Steve99 (post 201 or #87487):

If that's what you believe then you disagree with scientific naturalism. You see, scientific naturalism claims that everything that objectively exists, exists in the physical universe that (according to scientific naturalism) science studies.

No it doesn't. You are just making this up. Scientific naturalism does not claim that Pi (an infinite number, after all) objectively exists in the physical universe. Please look up the meaning of the word 'abstract'.

Scientific naturalism claims that the world as described by science is a unity, or in other words that nature is all there is. You appear to believe that scientific naturalism allows for the existence of parallel abstract worlds such as the Platonic ideals, but this is factually wrong. In fact naturalist philosophers respond to the transcendental argument by trying to "naturalize" (i.e. to reduce to scientific facts) all abstract terms. Let me quote from the very recent and state of the art "Naturalism in Question" by Mario De Caro and David MacArthur: "The acceptance of an exclusively scientific conception of nature is what leads to the demand for the various projects of naturalizing the mind and its contents (involving, say, ethical values, colors, and numbers)." Mathematics (which is a common case used in the transcendental argument) does represent a problem for scientific naturalism. In fact there is an entire book which tries to find a way to reduce mathematics to scientific facts, Penelopy Maddy's "Realism in Mathematics". Her solution? That mathematical objects such as numbers are patterns present in the neural firings of the brains of people who know mathematics. So, contrary to what you believe, scientific naturalism does imply that pi objectively exists in the physical universe. (And pi by the way is not an infinite number but an irrational number. Steve, you really should go out and study the issues at hand a little more or at least do some research before responding to my posts a few minutes after I posted them, for it's tiring for me to constantly find myself explaining simple stuff to you. Things are really not as trivial as you think, and I am sorry that Dawkins's TGD confused you into believing that they are.)

In this context I would like to point out the fact is that some atheist philosophers are already recognizing that scientific naturalism is not viable and so they are trying to device some kind of "pluralistic naturalism", i.e. a description of some kind of transcendental reality in which mathematics, conscious experiences, ethical values, knowledge, and so on, objectively co-exist with the physical universe. An understanding of reality according to pluralistic naturalism rejects the claim that natural science and/or the scientific method are the ultimate arbiters of all truths. There is still some debate going on, but I think there is already overwhelming evidence that scientific naturalism is a conceptual failure too, quite apart from its practical problems of describing a reality capable of producing quantum phenomena and of producing consciousness.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

325. Comment #88342 by Veronique on November 16, 2007 at 5:18 am

Hahahaha!

DG's posts usually make me cross but this time all the responses and ripostes have made me laugh out loud.

Steve, I loved your 309. Comment #88250 and Epeeist your 311. Comment #88312.

What a great thread to go to bed with.

Thank you guys so much:-) See you in the morning.
Vxx

Other Comments by Veronique

326. Comment #88345 by clodhopper on November 16, 2007 at 5:37 am

Comment #88341 by DG

(And pi by the way is not an infinite number but an irrational number. Steve, you really should go out and study the issues at hand a little more or at least do some research before responding to my posts a few minutes after I posted them, for it's tiring for me to constantly find myself explaining simple stuff to you. Things are really not as trivial as you think, and I am sorry that Dawkins's TGD confused you into believing that they are.)

Yeah....c'mon steve....get a grip. Fancy not understanding the simple stuff DG is explaining! Tch.

Other Comments by clodhopper

327. Comment #88346 by Lauregon on November 16, 2007 at 5:38 am

One word does not make an argument no matter how loud it's shouted. You like being cryptic and dropping hints instead of presenting a case – but hey, suit yourself. - Dianelos

What's that you say, Mr Potts?

It seems a common tactic of the atheistic mindset is to try not to expose itself (e.g. atheism is only a lack of belief, atheism is not a belief system, lack of beliefs cannot motivate people to act badly, atheism being a negative proposition does not have the burden of proof, I "don't know" how objective reality is so I don't have to divulge my thoughts about it, etc).

Well, maybe that's a smart tactic; maybe atheists deep down do realize that atheism is rather problematic so it's better to avoid making explicit how they think. I must say though that to their merit many atheists here, including Steve99 and Dr Benway, did not follow that tactic. And to their merit New Atheism authors have gone out and debated theists. It will be interesting to observe if they will continue doing such debates in the future, for at the very least one thing that these debates have clearly evidenced is that theism is not as moronic as they have been insisting in their books. Finally I would like to warmly commend this very website of Dawkins: it's very instructive and open; probably the best place to find out what's happening in this area as well as how atheists think. - Dianelos

No matter how well you think of yourself and your theist argumentation, Dianelos, it's a failure. You've converted no one here. You're a salesman lacking both market and demonstrable product. Without the political power to compel belief through coercion and force, theism is impotent in a non-theist realm. At its root, theism is utterly authoritarian. You seem to prefer ignoring that fact (at least for the present). There's a reason why for centuries theism was so often imposed by means of sword and stake.

Other Comments by Lauregon

328. Comment #88348 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 5:45 am

Dr Benway (post 214 or #87552):

I made the point about the relative meaning of "objective" before. Something is demonstrated to be "objective" by independent corroboration. The easier something is to corroborate by independent observers, the more objective that thing is. But it's like Dianelos hasn't heard a word. He's still defining "objective" as meaning totally independent of any observer. Which is not a very practical standard.

That's indeed the definition of "objective": totally independent from our opinion, and even from our very existence. So, for example, when scientific naturalists claim that the physical universe objectively exists, or that it follows objective physical laws, they mean precisely that the physical universe would exist and follow physical laws even if we were not here observing it.

But the belief that something objectively exists does not imply that we can easily find out about it. See for example the case of physical laws: the fact that it is difficult to discover them and that physics is a work in progress, which might never end by the way, does not imply that physical laws are not completely objective, or that they are objective only up to some degree. It's true that our knowledge about them is not complete and is correct only to some degree, but we must not conflate the relative reliability or precision of our knowledge about something with the objectively of it. In fact, the one knowledge we are absolutely certain about is our subjective experiences, which is the very antithesis of objectivity.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

329. Comment #88350 by Yaweh on November 16, 2007 at 5:53 am

Dianelos: And pi by the way is not an infinite number but an irrational number. Steve, you really should go out and study the issues at hand a little more or at least do some research before responding to my posts a few minutes after I posted them, for it's tiring for me to constantly find myself explaining simple stuff to you. Things are really not as trivial as you think, and I am sorry that Dawkins's TGD confused you into believing that they are.

LOL. Steve makes a slip of the tongue, calling pi "infinite" when he likely meant either "infinite number of digits after the decimal" or "irrational." Somehow this is Dawkins' fault.

Did Dawkins once kill a puppy of yours, Dianelos?

So unless one assumes that the physical universe objectively exists there can't be any evidence whatsoever for the objective existence of the moon or of the Statue of Liberty. I hope you can see that.

Something can be objective without being physical. But there's no practical difference between a physical universe and a universe that only seems physical. Might as well call both "physical."

Other Comments by Yaweh

330. Comment #88351 by Reverend Dark on November 16, 2007 at 5:55 am

If we assume that our experiences are in the mind of your particular set of fairy tales?

What twaddle. High minded twaddle, but twaddle nonetheless.

In order to prove the un-provable you must assume the inane and allow objective observation to drop to the ground like a newborn giraffe in a splay legged pantomime of defeat.

Oh I can see where you are trying to lead; but without any evidence for your initial assumption then it remains twaddle. If you assume that Bert the Magic Penguin is causing our experience of the physical universe; then you can't objectively prove the existence of any artifact in that universe – but, and this is a J-Lo double-glazed-peach sized but – you have to believe – on no evidence – that there is a giant penguin who is playing with your perceptions as it might play with it's arctic-proof genitalia.

Perhaps you are wish-thinking for a moment of universal realization when you pop your mortal clogs, reach out and touch the face of god – streaming past our physical reality like a golden stream of urine the splatter onto the pristine urinal of a greater understanding. Rude awakening time. You are not Neo. This is not the Matrix. This is not the Simulation theory. You are going through the age old motions of trying to rationalize an imaginary friend. You are fortunate in that you have been preceded by generations of very clever people who have also faced the same problem that you do; they have constructed intricate arguments as to why Mr. Flopsy exists; and have had to further refine them when the spaces for Mr. Flopsy to hide have become smaller and smaller. Now you are trying argue that we are some sick, wet dream, swimming in the reaches of Mr. Flopsy's mind – as there is no way to prove that we are not.

Now, I am being deliberately flippant in my choice of language; as your particular flavour of twaddle tends to mask itself in grandiose prose; as if to somehow hide that at the very root it is still seeking out a hiding place for Mr. Flopsy.

Other Comments by Reverend Dark

331. Comment #88353 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 6:03 am

Epeeist (post 222 or #87708:

Well if you examined the entire universe and you didn't see a single black hole, you'd falsify the proposition, "black holes exist (in the universe)." – Dr Benway

Unfortunately you wouldn't. You have to look both back and forward in time as well.

Correct. Black holes are singularities in the spacetime continuum, so in order to falsify their existence one would have to search all of spacetime.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

332. Comment #88354 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 6:06 am

This is not the Matrix. This is not the Simulation theory.

but remember we are possibly in a 5th level simulation, ie a russian doll of simulation, the alien originators of the first simulation dont even know we are here!! the simulations in the level 4 simulation told me (athough they are not supposed to do that). the problem is theres a belief (an unsubstantiated one, can you believe that, hahaha, such idiots) that we may be actually the 7th simulation sub branch within the second primary one, but its BS anyway as how do you differentiate the a sub branch from a primary branch eh, its all down to definitions????

Other Comments by phasmagigas

333. Comment #88355 by Yaweh on November 16, 2007 at 6:15 am

Dianelos: Forget about my belief in Jesus's resurrection, that's a red herring.

Take away God's interventions in our world, and you're a deist, agnostic, or atheist. If you say, "there are no miracles but God does everything" you're still a deist.

So what's all the fuss about?

That's indeed the definition of "objective": totally independent from our opinion, and even from our very existence.

So how do you demonstrate that some claim about the world is objective rather than subjective?

Other Comments by Yaweh

334. Comment #88357 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 6:29 am

Epeeist (post 228 or #87738:

I always found that idea to be a complete truism. After all your example is exactly equivalent to The proposition 'rabbits eat grass' is true if and only it's true that rabbits eat grass. But this does not explain what we mean by "truth".

Over the course of this thread I have been giving you feed lines, post 86718 was the most glaringly obvious of these.

Feed lines? :-)

And I don't see what post 86718 has to do with the matter at hand, namely what is truth. Anyway here is a quote from that post: "The great physical theories of the 20th century (GR, QM and QFT) provide a convincing view of reality though it is obvious that they are not complete." All physical theories model phenomena, and hence make claims about phenomenal reality. GR is still classical physics, and in classical physics it's easy to fall for the illusion that phenomenal and objective physical reality are the same thing, but QM has radically destroyed that illusion.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

335. Comment #88368 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 8:46 am

Dr Benway (post 232 or #87756:

The idea that one needs evidence for all claims is wrong

Who is claiming one needs evidence for all claims?

Apparently, Steve99 does. When I say I believe in some proposition because it strikes me as completely obvious, he insists that in order to convince him I must present *evidence*. He appears to be under the impression that evidentialism is a fine idea, and also that to reject evidentialism is tantamount to refusing the need to give evidence for any claim.

There are a few we accept a priori as they are necessary for communication.

That's an interesting idea I had not heard before :-) But does it work?

objective reality exists

Accepted as necessary for communication.

I don't see why; solipsists communicate with others just fine.

the world did not start 5 minutes ago

Not necessary for communication.

Correct, so there are some propositions you believe in even though there is no evidence for them and neither are they necessary for communication.

If no evidence exists to distinguish an old universe from a 5 minute universe, the proposition can be ignored.

We might be able to make such a distinction in the future. Maybe we'll be able to construct a time machine and discover that we cannot travel back to any time before November 16, 2007. So that proposition is meaningful, and we all believe it's false even at the absence of any evidence.

(It also can be rejected by appeals to parsimony, part of the inductive method - see below.)

I like the idea of parsimony, but then again that's a very subjective criterion don't you think? I mean try to device a set of objective criteria that would allow two people to agree about which of their belief systems is more parsimonious :-)

the inductive method is correct

Necessary for communicating predictions to each other.

Actually it's necessary for making predictions, not for communicating them.

idealistic theism is a better explanation than scientific realism

Not necessary for communication. Evidence?

Plenty of evidence. For example even though both idealistic theism and scientific naturalism are monistic ontologies, only the latter confronts that hard problem of how a physical system could produce consciousness. The corresponding problem in idealistic theism would be to explain how consciousness produces physical systems, but this problem does not exist because according to idealism physical systems do not objectively exist in the first place so there is no question of how they are produced. (All physical facts and physical rules represent only patterns in conscious experience.) Idealistic theism simply works better than scientific naturalism in too many fronts (actually in all fronts I could think of). It even works better for science, for in idealistic theism the phenomenal is objective, so scientists do not have to worry about what kind of an objective reality produces the phenomenal reality they study. The same does not work for scientific naturalism for obvious reasons.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

336. Comment #88371 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 9:06 am

Dr Benway (post 234 or #87760:

One must reason to one's own satisfaction and not to other peoples' satisfaction.

Any proposition that cannot be corroborated deserves less confidence than one that can be corroborated. You know that.

Agreed.

That's why you're here.

You are right, but mainly the other way around: I was curious to see if people here would des-corroborate my ideas, i.e. find good counter-arguments I had not thought of before.

an atheist must first have the mental flexibility to temporarily drop their naturalistic intuitions

Translation: I want to cheat our immigration laws. Please look the other way whilst Jesus sneaks in without a passport. But if the door's open to Jesus it's open to Osama.

I don't see how what you write here connects to what I wrote above. But I found your last sentence striking, for it's very true. If you open the doors to Jesus you open them to Osama also. If you close the doors to Osama you close them to Jesus too. So we all have a choice to make here.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

337. Comment #88374 by Peacebeuponme on November 16, 2007 at 9:27 am

For example even though both idealistic theism and scientific naturalism are monistic ontologies, only the latter confronts that hard problem of how a physical system could produce consciousness.

Has scientific naturalism even tried to explain it yet? Scientific research is being carried out, but until then we say "I don't know".

Idealistic theism confronts the problem, but is the explanation it gives a good one?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

338. Comment #88376 by Yaweh on November 16, 2007 at 9:52 am

objective reality exists

Accepted as necessary for communication.

I don't see why; solipsists communicate with others just fine.

Solipsists don't believe in communication. Others don't exist.

the inductive method is correct

Necessary for communicating predictions to each other.

Actually it's necessary for making predictions, not for communicating them.

Can't communicate predictions if you can't make them.

Other Comments by Yaweh

339. Comment #88378 by Lauregon on November 16, 2007 at 10:06 am

When I say I believe in some proposition because it strikes me as completely obvious, he insists that in order to convince him I must present *evidence*. - Dianelos

A perfectly reasonable position.

But the belief that something objectively exists does not imply that we can easily find out about it. - Dianelos

An illusory world in which there are absolute laws imposed by a "God" person is a deck god-stacked against the people who must live in it. Such a "God" person would be diabolic and somewhat akin to a person who owns a casino.

Other Comments by Lauregon

340. Comment #88393 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Goldy (post 249 or #87863:

Of course God does not actually want these [evil] things.

So he's also as constrained by natural "laws" as the rest of us. He is a creation of physics, as it were? Not infallible?

No, no, nothing like that. Rather it goes like this: In order to understand the actions of any person one must know their prime motivation, what it is they want before all else. What God wants is for us to grow in virtue (i.e. increase personal goodness), and hence has created for us an experiential environment optimized for that goal. Why doesn't God directly give us all that virtue, instead of having us go through all the trouble and suffering and so on we are exposed here? Because either virtue is personally earned, or else is not virtue: personal goodness is either earned or is not personal. A related issue is why life's troubles are distributed so unjustly. The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death, and we shall all continue to experience both joy and pain and agonize over ethical decisions for a long time to come – and on average all people will get about the same deal. Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

341. Comment #88399 by Diacanu on November 16, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Ugh, look at the braincells DG wastes on this shit.

Transcendental apologetics is a nastier compulsion than chewing tobacco.

That's it, no more getting dragged into it, I'm out.
Laters.

Other Comments by Diacanu

342. Comment #88412 by phil rimmer on November 16, 2007 at 2:06 pm

My PE teacher, scornful of my attempt to get out of games with a headache and a poorly finger, announced to the rest of the class, "I always know a boy is lying to me when he gives me two excuses."

A related issue is why life's troubles are distributed so unjustly. The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death, and we shall all continue to experience both joy and pain and agonize over ethical decisions for a long time to come – and on average all people will get about the same deal. Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too.

Dianelos knows neither excuse is up to the job...

Did I just experience a little frisson of schadenfreude at his possible discomfort? You know, I think I did.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

343. Comment #88439 by Lauregon on November 16, 2007 at 4:20 pm

No, no, nothing like that. Rather it goes like this: In order to understand the actions of any person one must know their prime motivation, what it is they want before all else. What God wants is for us to grow in virtue (i.e. increase personal goodness), and hence has created for us an experiential environment optimized for that goal. Why doesn't God directly give us all that virtue, instead of having us go through all the trouble and suffering and so on we are exposed here? Because either virtue is personally earned, or else is not virtue: personal goodness is either earned or is not personal. A related issue is why life's troubles are distributed so unjustly. The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death, and we shall all continue to experience both joy and pain and agonize over ethical decisions for a long time to come – and on average all people will get about the same deal. Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too. - Dianelos

Such a rosy perspective doesn't sound at all like that of someone who has actual empathy for or understanding of the suffering of others. Maybe if you had, for example, been born with cerebral palsy, or muscular dystrophy, or spina bifida, or maybe as a head-conjoined twin, or as a beseiged refugee in Darfur, or maybe even merely as a female factory slave/worker in China instead of as someone with myriad hours to spend posting on this forum and numerous others, writing as one who appears to imagine he knows the mind of "God," you might have a seriously different perspective. For that matter, a creator "God" whose perspective resembles your cheerful, "it all evens out in the end" view, would be a "God" whose ethics and morals fall far short of the best human examples.


Other Comments by Lauregon

344. Comment #88469 by BMMcArdle on November 16, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Dianelos,
How do you describe your perception of existence, your consciousness? According to your worldview, where everything is an illusion, why do you think you are you?
If everything is an illusion, how do you know where the illusion stops, and you begin?
Isn't it a tad egocentric to think that you are the center of the universe, an illusion created for you in a kind of cosmic game show where the host is asking you ethical questions, and based on your response, the prize is everlasting life in never-never land when the host creates the illusion of your dying?
Do you honestly believe these things, or are you just playing a game of "I can come up with an argument that no one can refute"?
Maybe these questions are part of the game show to you.
Are you in my game show, or am I in yours?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

345. Comment #88475 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 1:04 am

Phasmagigas (post 256 or #87869:

BUT heres the big one, the big unambiguous appearence of a god (or alien trick) just ISNT going to happen is it?

No, I don't think so either. But should it happen the consequent atheist would figure there must be a natural cause for it.

You see for me thats the big problem with god, it allows one to posit anything atall, anything atall without eveidence, god made the rain fall, not fall, dog die, sun shine, butterfly hatch, light bulb blow, ship sink, lose leg, god could even deliberately not answer prayers just so that people pray even more, I can come up with as many goddidits as any believer.

Yes, and as some believers say "mysterious are God's ways" – but I think that's all wrong. The God concept has huge explanatory power, which includes the explanation why we experience a physical environment, why we suffer, why we die, what beauty is, what the meaning of life is – and so on. And what's more God is not only to be understood but also and mainly to be experienced: As is the case with any person what first and firstmost matters and what is most meaningful and most pleasurable is the relationship :-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

346. Comment #88477 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 1:48 am

Goldy (post 258 or #87873):

Except being a person, God is also perfectly good, the creator of us and the designer of our experiential environment.

Not 100% sure what this is meant to be saying.

It's not difficult really: We all agree there is an objective reality out there, in which we all exist, each one of us forming a tiny part. Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty. We form part of reality and hence are that person's children. And that person has designed and sustains for us the experiential environment we find ourselves living in – including, incidentally, of the physical facts and laws. So you see, according to theism reality is a far more interesting place than scientific naturalism has it.

could you elaborate on what you mean by "good" here?

OK. The whole of reality is a living person, right? That's the main idea. Now, as any living person reality is not static but dynamic: it evolves. So "good" does not really describe a static property of reality, but dynamic property of it: goodness is the direction in which reality is evolving. And here's the nub of it: we are co-creators of reality's dynamic evolution [1], indeed that's the deepest reason of creation. God grows through us, as we grow through God. (Incidentally these are not my ideas – you can find them in the better and non-dogmatic writings of the Christian tradition.)

[1] As I have been arguing, ethical goodness describes God's character and is therefore objective, but we, as co-creators of reality's evolution, co-define what is ethically good to a tiny degree :-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

347. Comment #88485 by Duff on November 17, 2007 at 3:31 am

DG,
God is this, and God is that??
I thought that to give god attributes is to limit him/her. You are a limiter of the first magnitude. Shame on you, you god limiter you.

Other Comments by Duff

348. Comment #88498 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 5:47 am

Dr Benway (post 260 or #87957):

But I'm not selling materialism. I don't even know what matter is exactly. Waves, particles, strings, tiny curled up extra dimensions - it's not a straight forward thing, this stuff we call "matter."

The detailed properties of matter are not important in this context. What counts is this: Do you agree with the proposition "The material universe would exist even if humanity did not"? If you do agree then you believe in the objective existence of matter.

I've been trying to get Dianelos away from the "ontology" stuff

The belief that matter objectively exists is an ontological belief.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

349. Comment #88503 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 6:40 am

Epeeist (post 272 or #87998):

All meaningful propositions make predictions that can be evaluated in one's own personal experience, at least in principle. The meaning of claiming a proposition is true is of betting that the predictions it makes are more likely to obtain than not.

I think you are making the immediate error of confusing the definition of truth and the criterion for truth, unless of course you are taking the pragmatist approach of Pierce, James and Dewey.

My approach is, obviously, pragmatic. I am a 100% pragmatical person. I don't see what the point is in thinking or discussing about theoretical stuff that is utterly irrelevant to our own lives. On the other hand I am not sure about Pierce, James and Dewey's ideas; they appear to suggest that truth is not objective and that in some sense we make truth. That's very far from what I mean.

All your examples are logically wrong. Propositions don't "predict" anything.

If a proposition does not predict anything what's the use thinking about whether it's true or not?

A proposition is just a declarative statement. I will treat your examples in this light.

Well, then you are not really engaging with what I suggest, for I suggest we understand the meaning and truth of proposition based on its predictive content.

No, the proposition "God exists" asserts that God exists, nothing else. If you want to assert that "You will experience life after death" then you will have to provide another proposition.

According to my scheme the meaning of a proposition encompasses also what all the propositions it implies predict. Otherwise all existential propositions (e.g. apples exist) would be rendered meaningless.

clearly there are better things to do than to think about propositions that cannot affect me in any way whatsoever.

Such as "there is no largest prime".

But this proposition can affect me. What it predicts is that no matter what number I am given I will be able (at least in principle) to compute a larger prime number. Some day maybe my life will depend on my knowing the truth of that proposition. Suppose I am condemned to be hanged, but the king offers me the possibility to save my life if within one day I finish one of the following two tasks: compute a prime number larger than 444 or design a flat map that cannot be painted with four colors.


Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

350. Comment #88508 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 7:07 am

Epeeist (post 283 or #88000):

Surely you are not saying that the proposition "2+2=4" does not predict that if I put two beans and two beans together and count the result I will get four :-)

You proposition says that the sum of the numbers 2 and 2 is 4. It is still fairly sloppy in that you don't specify whether this is in the domain of natural numbers (N) or integers (Z).

Why should I have specified this? The proposition is true even for the domains of fractional, irrational, and complex numbers. If I wanted to split hairs I would have specified that the proposition is given in base 10 (in base 3 the equivalent proposition would be "2+2=11").

Now the second part of your statement says that if you have two beans (we can say "in a cup" without loss of generality) and place two more beans in the cup then there will be four beans in the cup.

You forgot to specify that the cup to be used must be empty. Very sloppy :-)

Does it need to be said again - you are guilty of reification.

I am certainly guilty of not understanding what you mean.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis