Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 5:53 AM
38 online now:
caffeine (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,612 Year: 3,649/19,786 Month: 644/1,087 Week: 13/221 Day: 13/36 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something about all true arguements
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 1 of 14 (462604)
04-05-2008 6:34 PM


Something about all true arguements, and not just arguements which dont prove or satisfy any claims(even arguements for god's existence) is that they must ultimately provide a precise demonstration about all the terms in it to prove anything.

This is true since if that is not done, then for any part of the arguement which leaves an inspecific part(which happens anytime one makes assumptions, the only replacement for precise demonstration), there is simply not enough information to determine whether or not such an assumption is true.

It is possible to make an allusion to rules and information pertaining to an assumption which are known to be correct, but this is not avoiding a precise demonstration, since a precise demonstration for making those rules themselves was required.

Or, precise demonstration were required to make the rules and information which were required to make such rules.

So, all arguements must ultimately rely on precise demonstration.

This is why God must, in his characteristics, be made into a precise demonstration before anyone can take the idea of his existence seriously.

All arguements about God have always been based on assumptions which are completely pseudo-scientific and non-verifiable. This is why the idea of an existing god cannot be taken seriously for now.

Can anyone provide a precise demonstration explaining God?

Keep in mind that if you cant, "God" is no more believable than the Easter bunny for the reasons described above.

Edited by TheNaturalist, : its obvious


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-05-2008 8:41 PM TheNaturalist has responded
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2008 1:46 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 14 (462609)
04-05-2008 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
04-05-2008 6:34 PM


There's no such word as "skematic". If you meant "schematic" then you're misusing the term. If you meant "schema", then I don't think it clearly communicates what you're trying to say.

I think most people would agree with you that clearly defining terms is important, but just as important is using terms in a manner consistent with their meanings.

Except for the odd terminology this is a good opening post. If you can modify Message 1 (click the edit button) to fix the terminology I'll give it another look. Post a note here when you're done.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-05-2008 6:34 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-06-2008 1:07 PM Admin has responded

    
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 3 of 14 (462642)
04-06-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-05-2008 8:41 PM


I am finished now;

and, I wasnt exactly saying its important to "define terms"; I actually meant that one has to demonstrate an exact, earthly measurable system for anything (including God) in order for it to be viable.

Therefore, unless "God" is 1. directly or indirectly observable or 2. demonstratable by principle in combination with an indirect observation (such as string particles a.k.a. photons), there is NO reason to even consider the possibility of it's existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-05-2008 8:41 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-06-2008 3:49 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 14 (462652)
04-06-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TheNaturalist
04-06-2008 1:07 PM


When you were using the word "skematic" I was free to read into it whatever made sense to me. Now that you're using the word "demonstration" I'm unable to get a clear picture of what you're saying. Are you trying to say that claims should be supported with evidence?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-06-2008 1:07 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-06-2008 8:23 PM Admin has responded

    
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 5 of 14 (462676)
04-06-2008 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
04-06-2008 3:49 PM


Yes, but not only that; (by the way I know it might not seem clear what I mean since I am using ideas constructed by me)

I am also saying that all the (even minute) steps and factors of any system (like considering every small part of two car engines to consider an arguement about which one is more efficient, or every enzymatic process and hormone interaction etc. in an organelle in order to make an arguement about what it is capable of) MUST be understood and put into a framework in which they interact (no matter how complicated it is) in order for that arguement to be viable.

I wouldnt say anyone has ever given any such demonstration of how "God" works or even how such a god could theoretically work. They only make claims (that are entirely unsupported and are completely unviable by my above definitions) about how "God" does work or how "God" could work.

Such claims cant be taken any more seriously than claiming that a car is more energy-efficient than another without anyone knowing everything (or anything) about how it's engine works, or anyone ever seeing it being driven, or that an organelle is capable of recognizing flaws in our genetics and solving them without causing tumorous mutations, without anyone knowing anything about how the organelle works, or anyone ever observing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-06-2008 3:49 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 04-07-2008 9:38 AM TheNaturalist has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2008 1:18 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 6 of 14 (462687)
04-07-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheNaturalist
04-06-2008 8:23 PM


Okay, thanks, I think I have a pretty good picture of what you're trying to say, so I'll go ahead and promote this.

To those responding in this thread: Please be sure to read Message 5, as I believe it contains the most clear exposition of TheNaturalist's position.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-06-2008 8:23 PM TheNaturalist has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 14 (462688)
04-07-2008 9:39 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 8 of 14 (462704)
04-07-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheNaturalist
04-06-2008 8:23 PM


I wouldnt say anyone has ever given any such demonstration of how "God" works or even how such a god could theoretically work.

I'm not sure what your question is or exactly what the problem is, but I'll make an attempt at an answer anyway.

When Newton developed his theory of gravity, he never came up with any explanation of how gravity works. And this was, like you in this post, a criticism that many at the time laid against his theory: he merely postulated that gravity did exist, and that gravity had certain observable effects, and that we should be able to see real life bodies behave as if affected by the postulated gravitational forces.

I see no reason why God cannot be investigated in the same way (other than it may be blasphemous to put God under scientific scrutiny, of course). One can postulated that God exists, and one can may hypotheses about how God will interact with human beings and the material universe. One can then investigate whether the expected effects are seen.


There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-06-2008 8:23 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-11-2008 8:55 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 9 of 14 (462707)
04-07-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
04-05-2008 6:34 PM


Having answered post #5 as per Admin request, I now want to make some general comments in case the problem is a misunderstanding between the relation between logic and knowledge about the real world.

First, the thread title is in error. Arguments, in the sense of logic, are not true nor false. True and false are values given to statements; they can be assigned arbitrarily in the case of a theoretical exercise, but usually we consider a statement to be true if it corresponds to a fact about the real world and false otherwise.

Arguments are valid or invalid. An argument is valid if the conclusion is necessarily true whenever all the premises are true, otherwise it is invalid. An argument can also be sound or unsound; it is sound if it is valid and if the premises are all true; in otherwords, the conclusion of a sound argument must be true.

The problem is that we can never be absolutely certain whether or not any argument is sound because we can never be absolutely certain whether or not the premises are true. So we can never be certain whether or not a logical argument is actually telling us something about the real world. In the end, we must always verify our assumptions, the premises, by empirical observation.

As a matter of fact, this is what science is all about. We test theories (the premises of a logical argument) by seeing whether we observe that the conclusion (the prediction) is true. If the conclusion is false (we see something different), then, assuming that the argument is valid (which is usually straightforward to check), we know that one or more of the premises are false -- that is, the theory as it stands is in error and must be fixed or thrown out.

So it is pretty easy to develop perfectly valid arguments for the existence and for the non-existence of God. This has been done since time immemorial. Where all these arguments fail is when people disagree that all the premises that go into these arguments are true; that is, these arguments are either not sound, or their soundness is in question.


There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-05-2008 6:34 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-11-2008 8:46 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 10 of 14 (463072)
04-11-2008 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
04-07-2008 1:46 PM


(To the last post) well, Id say that one could argue that 2+2=5, though it is actually 4. I know that your definition of "statement" would be applied by you to this, but I define "argument" as any information which is supposed to illicit a reality.

A second thing is this: if a "true" arguement is defined as criteria which is relevant to a statement (which is what was implied, no doubt) then it could be that someone could use a "true arguement" about something in mathematics, and have it apply to a statement which is correct. However, this doesnt apply to the "real world" since it is an issue of abstraction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2008 1:46 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2008 2:17 PM TheNaturalist has not yet responded

    
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 11 of 14 (463073)
04-11-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
04-07-2008 1:18 PM


quote:
When Newton developed his theory of gravity, he never came up with any explanation of how gravity works. And this was, like you in this post, a criticism that many at the time laid against his theory: he merely postulated that gravity did exist, and that gravity had certain observable effects, and that we should be able to see real life bodies behave as if affected by the postulated gravitational forces.

I see no reason why God cannot be investigated in the same way (other than it may be blasphemous to put God under scientific scrutiny, of course). One can postulated that God exists, and one can may hypotheses about how God will interact with human beings and the material universe. One can then investigate whether the expected effects are seen.


The difference is: "God" is not regularly observed and has never been known to have been observed by a reasonable source. We call all see and observe gravity directly;

however, we 1. dont know exactly what "God" is (since everyone defines "God" differently) which is related to 2. people dont actually know that "God" exists unlike gravity(we see it happen every second of our lives).

Simple as that


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2008 1:18 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2008 4:32 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 12 of 14 (463135)
04-12-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TheNaturalist
04-11-2008 8:46 PM


I define "argument" as....
if a "true" arguement is defined as....

This is part of the problem. "Argument" already has a definition. It is defined to be a set of statements called premises and an additional statement called the conclusion. If you want, you can also extend it to include the exposition that demonstrates that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. "True" also has a definition. It is a value that is assigned to statements (usually implying that they correspond to a fact in the real world), not to arguments. Arguments are not true or false. They can be valid or invalid. They can be sound or unsound.

These definitions are standard -- by using the standard definitions people know what is being said and effective communication can take place. It may be that the precise technical definitions differ somewhat from the colloquial meanings used in everyday speech, but the colloquial meanings are usually ambiguous or imprecise, causing a risk for confusion.

Now when you decide that you're not going to use the standard definitions, you end up creating a potential for confusion, especially when, as is the case here, you don't have much experience in producing precise definitions. Also, it has been my experience here that an exposition that requires idiosyncratic definitions is a sign of confused thinking.


There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-11-2008 8:46 PM TheNaturalist has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 13 of 14 (463160)
04-12-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by TheNaturalist
04-11-2008 8:55 PM


The difference is: "God" is not regularly observed and has never been known to have been observed by a reasonable source.

That seems to be the controversy. Christians, for example, claim to regularly observe God. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, claim that the Bible is a reasonable source that describes the actions of God. You might decide that any source with which you disagree is not "reasonable", but the fact is that we have observations that may or may not be indicative of the existence of God. You can dismiss them because you've already concluded that such a God doesn't exist, if that's what you want, but any discussion of the existence of God, like the existence of any other entity or phenomenon, is going to have to discuss the reliability of the sources, not just dismissing the sources a priori as unreliable.

-

we 1. dont know exactly what "God" is

Well, you might not. I'm sure most people have a good idea of what God is.

-

since everyone defines "God" differently

I'm not sure why this is a weakness. Presumably you're going to discuss God with only one person at a time, or, at most, with a small group who pretty much have the same conception of God. Find out what they think God is, and discuss this God with them.

-

2. people dont actually know that "God" exists

I dunno. Christians seem pretty certain. If they are correct and God exists, then I think we can say that they do know that God exists according to the classical meaning of "know".


There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-11-2008 8:55 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TheNaturalist, posted 04-13-2008 1:38 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 14 of 14 (463223)
04-13-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
04-12-2008 4:32 PM


quote:
That seems to be the controversy. Christians, for example, claim to regularly observe God. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, claim that the Bible is a reasonable source that describes the actions of God. You might decide that any source with which you disagree is not "reasonable", but the fact is that we have observations that may or may not be indicative of the existence of God. You can dismiss them because you've already concluded that such a God doesn't exist, if that's what you want, but any discussion of the existence of God, like the existence of any other entity or phenomenon, is going to have to discuss the reliability of the sources, not just dismissing the sources a priori as unreliable.

They claim to regularly see "God's" effects on reality by their deduction, not direct observation; or, they claim to have "contact" with "God". The latter is only a satisfaction to their claims; they make themselves think they "talk" to "God" but in reality know (although they are fooling themselves) that they are talking to nothing. It's a sort of self-hypnosis

Edited by TheNaturalist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2008 4:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019