|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2005 : 20:01:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dave_W:How many have "concluded" that "God exists" (which implies that they went through a logical process), as opposed to just "believing" that "God exists"?
Now you are going in circles. As I posted previously the statement "I believe proposition X" is the equivalent to saying "Proposition X is true".
Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.
quote:
Posted by dv82matt: Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was driving at.
No. You are (possibly deliberately) being obtuse. You deliberately conflate the concept of "ideas" with that of real objects then switch them around freely between subject and predicate in inappropriate comparisons.
quote:
If you 'saw' God would it still be unreasonable to conclude that He exists? Perhaps it's only a hallucination, but perhaps when you 'see' a chair that is also a hallucination. What is it, in this scenario, that makes the conclusion, "god exists" unreasonable while the conclusion "this chair exists" is reasonable?
Ok. Lets put it like this.
If you accept the proposition "god exists" as reasonable then you must also accept the following propositions as reasonable:
1. The FSM exists and his noodly appendages are typing this post.
2. The IPU exists.
3. I am god, I created this entire universe and all within it, hid all evidence of my work, then shed my powers and omnipotence in order to live this human life so that I can convey this single message to you: "Beer is the drink of god. Please spread the word. Anyone who drinks beer will get a free pass into heaven, where there will of course be more beer."
So, bow down and worship me. Bring me gifts of beer. Because, according to you, it isn't unreasonable to believe that I am god.
And any other thing I can think of.
So really, you can say that any crazy shit you want is reasonable, by your criteria.
quote:
If you 'saw' God would it still be unreasonable to conclude that He exists? Perhaps it's only a hallucination, but perhaps when you 'see' a chair that is also a hallucination. What is it, in this scenario, that makes the conclusion, "god exists" unreasonable while the conclusion "this chair exists" is reasonable?
I have not "seen" god, nor has anyone else. I can pick up a chair and whack you with it, thereby demonstrating it's objectiveness and existence.
quote:
Posted by Dave_W:Even if the answer to the above is zero, one can go through a logically sound process and conclude that God exists, if one's premises are incorrect.
Sure sure... this isn't a discussion about basic argumentation however.
We are talking about a topic that doesn't fall into your example Dave. If your premise are incorrect, your conclusion is invalid. Regardless of how proper the structure of your argument is.
Perhaps I'm just not eloquent enough to make the point here. Or perhaps you two are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Whatever the case this thread is starting to go in circles. Arguments restated multiple times, red-herrings galore, etc..
Quite frankly its becomming frustrating, and I think I'm starting to get irritated. It probably shows in the tone.
So, as it isn't unreasonable to conclude that I am god, I will just go drink a beer and chill for a bit.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 20:55:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Now you are going in circles. As I posted previously the statement "I believe proposition X" is the equivalent to saying "Proposition X is true".
Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.
It may be going in circles, but it's obviously because I still have questions.quote:
Quite frankly its becomming frustrating, and I think I'm starting to get irritated. It probably shows in the tone.
Indeed. You perhaps wouldn't believe the number of times I've decided to do something other than reply to this thread until I've calmed down enough to do so without freaking out, as it seems my points have been missed over and over.
quote:
I can pick up a chair and whack you with it, thereby demonstrating it's objectiveness and existence.
Only if we agree to your existence in the first place.
What's the difference between "external reality exists" and "God exists"? Both are unfalsifiable assumptions. The only difference between them is that if you reject the former, you've got no basis for science (but you can still create logic, reason and the other tools science uses).
This once again gets us back to basic philosophy, and I've been waiting for an argument based upon logic that there is an external reality. I've heard one based upon practicality, but I don't agree that that which is logical is always practical (or vice versa).
For the nth time, if "reasonable" is to be a synonym for "scientific," so be it, but that may stir up different problems.quote:
quote:
Posted by Dave_W:Even if the answer to the above is zero, one can go through a logically sound process and conclude that God exists, if one's premises are incorrect.
Sure sure... this isn't a discussion about basic argumentation however.
Yes, it apparently is.quote:
We are talking about a topic that doesn't fall into your example Dave. If your premise are incorrect, your conclusion is invalid. Regardless of how proper the structure of your argument is.
No, the conclusion would be unsound even if the logic is valid. As in "yes, that would be true if your premises are true." And actually, you can start with incorrect premises and still come to a correct (but unsound) conclusion. Wrong premises are not sufficient to deem a conclusion to be wrong, but they are enough to deem a conclusion unsound. Is an unsound conclusion an unreasonable conclusion?
Is an unsound conclusion an unreasonable conclusion in light of the fact that we will never be able to validate or invalidate every reasonable-sounding premise?
So if you've been told by someone you trust that the premises are correct, and you can't demonstrate that the premises are wrong, then what? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 21:51:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Posted by dv82matt:Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was driving at.
No. You are (possibly deliberately) being obtuse. You deliberately conflate the concept of "ideas" with that of real objects then switch them around freely between subject and predicate in inappropriate comparisons.
Nonsense, you are (perhaps deliberately) being antagonistic to mask your ignorance.
Yeah I know, tit for tat sucks, so lay of the childish insults and I'll do the same.quote:
Ok. Lets put it like this.
If you accept the proposition "god exists" as reasonable then you must also accept the following propositions as reasonable:
1. The FSM exists and his noodly appendages are typing this post.
2. The IPU exists.
3. I am god, I created this entire universe and all within it, hid all evidence of my work, then shed my powers and omnipotence in order to live this human life so that I can convey this single message to you: "Beer is the drink of god. Please spread the word. Anyone who drinks beer will get a free pass into heaven, where there will of course be more beer."
So, bow down and worship me. Bring me gifts of beer. Because, according to you, it isn't unreasonable to believe that I am god.
And any other thing I can think of.
So really, you can say that any crazy shit you want is reasonable, by your criteria.
Okay, you make some good points here but I think that it all hinges on the definition of reasonable. For the purposes of this discussion here's my proposed defintion.
Reasonable: Well suited and appropriate to the goal at hand.
I think that this definition would address your concern that "any crazy shit you want is reasonable", but I'll wait to see if this definition is acceptable to everyone before I explain. (It shouldn't be too hard to guess why.)quote:
quote:
If you 'saw' God would it still be unreasonable to conclude that He exists? Perhaps it's only a hallucination, but perhaps when you 'see' a chair that is also a hallucination. What is it, in this scenario, that makes the conclusion, "god exists" unreasonable while the conclusion "this chair exists" is reasonable?
I have not "seen" god, nor has anyone else. I can pick up a chair and whack you with it, thereby demonstrating it's objectiveness and existence.
Okay, I realize that you're frustrated, but this reply does not in any way address the conflict in the proposed scenario. There is no 'someone else' in the scenario to whack over the head. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 22:35:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Hi, I'm a theist and I see my belief in a higher power to be largely symbolic as a means for self improvement.
Alright, I concede: a belief in a largely symbolic higher power does not contradict reason.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 22:45:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What's the difference between "external reality exists" and "God exists"? Both are unfalsifiable assumptions. The only difference between them is that if you reject the former, you've got no basis for science (but you can still create logic, reason and the other tools science uses).
This once again gets us back to basic philosophy, and I've been waiting for an argument based upon logic that there is an external reality. I've heard one based upon practicality, but I don't agree that that which is logical is always practical (or vice versa).
For the nth time, if "reasonable" is to be a synonym for "scientific," so be it, but that may stir up different problems.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm defining reasonable as "sufficiently grounded in the assumptions of science or logical defensible using the tools of science." This is because the thread began by talking about scientists, who must be assumed to have accepted the validity of these principles to begin with. We don't need to provide a logical argument that there is an external reality since our subject already presumes there is. Non-scientists, or more specifically people who reject the original assumptions science rests upon, are more than free to adopt whatever view of reality they choose. Our discussion hasn't yet dealt with those people, nor do I see why it should.
The type I'm saying live a contradiction are the ones who claim they accept science and its fruits on the one hand, but also reject its principles when they decide they want to believe in something it can't recommend.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/19/2005 23:20:03 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 22:48:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
For the purposes of this discussion here's my proposed defintion.
Reasonable: Well suited and appropriate to the goal at hand.
I think that this definition would address your concern that "any crazy shit you want is reasonable", but I'll wait to see if this definition is acceptable to everyone before I explain.
Hopefully it is clear from my response to Dave, but this definiton isn't acceptable to me. I've been focusing on a stricter definition of reasonable that is far narrower than "appropriate to the goal at hand."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/19/2005 22:52:13 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 23:24:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Hopefully it is clear from my response to Dave, but this definiton isn't acceptable to me. I've been focusing on a stricter definition of reasonable that is far narrower than "appropriate to the goal at hand."
Fair enough.quote:
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm defining reasonable as "sufficiently grounded in the assumptions of science or logical defensible using the tools of science."
Let's go with your definition, but just so I'm clear, this would make "reasonable" a very close synonym of "scientific" would it not? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 01:24:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Let's go with your definition, but just so I'm clear, this would make "reasonable" a very close synonym of "scientific" would it not?
Not "scientific" in the sense that it must be provable through science, but scientific in that sense that it must be a valid product of the tools of science (critical thinking and logic) as applied to the fundamental epistemologies of science, such as that there is an external reality or that our senses are presumably valid guides, etc.
For a belief to be reasonable, then, one must be able to backtrack through the logical sequence which supports the belief.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/20/2005 01:32:39 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 11:29:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
For a belief to be reasonable, then, one must be able to backtrack through the logical sequence which supports the belief.
I think I get it. "Reasonable" would be similar to "scientific" but not nessessarily as rigorous or precise. For example the statement, "Mouthwash gets rid of bad breath." is reasonable but not scientific.
If I've correctly understood your definition of "reasonable", I still don't see how any purely subjective statements such as "I can make a difference" or "China is in the heart" could be considered reasonable. How could one backtrack through a logical sequence to support such beliefs?
From a previous post:quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
We don't need to provide a logical argument that there is an external reality since our subject already presumes there is.
I agree that certain basic assumptions are nessessary even if they are not logically justified. But I wonder if the minimum set of assumptions which are essential for science are actually enough. After all the assumption that it is desirable to learn about objective reality is not nessessary from a strictly logical perspective (that is science would still be completely workable without it), but without it we would never actually do science. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 13:24:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm defining reasonable as "sufficiently grounded in the assumptions of science or logical defensible using the tools of science." This is because the thread began by talking about scientists, who must be assumed to have accepted the validity of these principles to begin with. We don't need to provide a logical argument that there is an external reality since our subject already presumes there is.
I think you missed my point in asking the question. If you, H., find that belief in the unevidenced is unreasonable, then how do you justify a belief in "external reality," which may not exist at all (and no tool of science can demonstrate that it does)? (Yes, I know I asked the quesiton of Dude, but you answered.  )quote:
Non-scientists, or more specifically people who reject the original assumptions science rests upon, are more than free to adopt whatever view of reality they choose. Our discussion hasn't yet dealt with those people, nor do I see why it should.
Right, but I'm trying to figure out how one can justify one set of assumptions as leading to reasonable beliefs, and another set to unreasonable beliefs, without it simply being a matter of definition.quote:
The type I'm saying live a contradiction are the ones who claim they accept science and its fruits on the one hand, but also reject its principles when they decide they want to believe in something it can't recommend.
But as I argued before (and forgive me for not remembering your response), one of the principles of science is that it has limits beyond which it cannot probe. If a scientist's view of God is as existing beyond those limits, then the scientist need not reject the principles of science. For example, PvM wrote on the Panda's Thumb, in comment 48895,As a scientist and a Christian, I find no problem reconciling my faith with science as I see them as mostly different realms. To me the quantum world is what effectively 'isolates' God from His Creation, giving us free will. Now of course, we should ask him about what he means, precisely by this in relation to our thread before making assumptions, but I see no conflict here. There is no scientific principle which says "only those things which are scientifically testable exist," since such a principle would imply that "the quantum world" didn't "exist" before 1920-something.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 13:55:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you missed my point in asking the question. If you, H., find that belief in the unevidenced is unreasonable, then how do you justify a belief in "external reality," which may not exist at all (and no tool of science can demonstrate that it does)? (Yes, I know I asked the quesiton of Dude, but you answered. )
Context. How many times do I have to say it? CONTEXT.
We all agree that at least two minimum assumptions must be made. External objective reality exists and we can detect it.
The reason those are accepted is because they are necessary assumptions. Without those two all you have is solipsism, and I think we all agree that is a futile and pointless path.
Within that context all other assumptions are unnecessary.
But, you can reach reasonable conclusions within certain contexts by accepting certain specific assumptions. The conclusions are, of course, conditional upon your assumptions actually being correct.
It is unreasonable to base conclusions upon unnecessarry and unevidenced assumptions. All conclusions we reach are conditional upon those two basic assumptions being true, nobody is questioning that at all.
However, when you base conclusions about one context on the conditions of a different context, you step into the realm of the unreasonable.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/20/2005 14:00:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 18:57:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Context. How many times do I have to say it? CONTEXT.
Yes, Dude, you're frustrating the hell out of me, also.
I didn't see an answer to my question about whether one of those two basic assumptions is reasonable (not whether it's necessary, but whether it's reasonable).
Most of what you said I agree with entirely. But then there's this:quote:
However, when you base conclusions about one context on the conditions of a different context, you step into the realm of the unreasonable.
Which is specifically not what I'm talking about. How many times do I need to say that?!?
At least H. understood that I was talking about someone who switched between two independent contexts (they differ by how a person can detect the two different external realities), he just found it "distasteful" that there's no method for doing so. Whether or not distaste is a good basis upon which to judge reasonable from unreasonable, I don't know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 19:49:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I think you missed my point in asking the question. If you, H., find that belief in the unevidenced is unreasonable, then how do you justify a belief in "external reality," which may not exist at all (and no tool of science can demonstrate that it does)?
I accept it on faith as a matter of pragmatism.
quote:
Right, but I'm trying to figure out how one can justify one set of assumptions as leading to reasonable beliefs, and another set to unreasonable beliefs, without it simply being a matter of definition.
It is a matter of definition. I never said the scientific view was the correct one. There isn't any way to prove it. My point has always been that once you do accept it, then certain results necessarily follow.
quote:
But as I argued before (and forgive me for not remembering your response), one of the principles of science is that it has limits beyond which it cannot probe.
Science can investigate any claim that makes testible predictions. If a claim is designed in such a way as to avoid making testible predicition, then there is no way to validate it. It is not reasonable to believe in things which cannot be validated.
quote:
If a scientist's view of God is as existing beyond those limits, then the scientist need not reject the principles of science.
Yes he would, since science would say we must await more evidence before committing to belief.
quote:
For example, PvM wrote on the Panda's Thumb, in comment 48895,As a scientist and a Christian, I find no problem reconciling my faith with science as I see them as mostly different realms. To me the quantum world is what effectively 'isolates' God from His Creation, giving us free will. Now of course, we should ask him about what he means, precisely by this in relation to our thread before making assumptions, but I see no conflict here. There is no scientific principle which says "only those things which are scientifically testable exist," since such a principle would imply that "the quantum world" didn't "exist" before 1920-something.
Yes, we've had this discussion already. This has nothing to do with ruling out what may exist, only with what we may reasonably believe at the current moment. The quantum world may have existed prior to the 1920s, but it would have been, lacking sufficient evidence, unreasonable to believe in it before then.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/20/2005 19:53:06 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 19:56:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
H. understood that I was talking about someone who switched between two independent contexts (they differ by how a person can detect the two different external realities), he just found it "distasteful" that there's no method for doing so. Whether or not distaste is a good basis upon which to judge reasonable from unreasonable, I don't know.
More than distasteful. Unethical even.
But you're smart enough to know that the basis I'm using for judgement is the methodlessness itself, not how I feel about it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/20/2005 19:59:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
