Underlying Philosophy

But we're talking about people not believing in X,Y and Z. That's not a philosophy. That's also not a philosophy, and I doubt anybody here on the atheist side thinks this happened. A human egg cell is larger than an atom, for one. And just as unbelievable as "god" doing it. We know quite a bit actually.

No, that's just not one of the things that can be a philosophy. A belief that the Eiffel Tower exists cannot be someone's philosophy any more than it can be their pet or their favorite food. That is not my philosophy. That's just a crude misstatement of a fact. A priori, yes. A posterori, no. No, my "dismay" is an imaginary thing in your head. I am not, in fact, dismayed. Speak for yourself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's great that you know what information is, what time is, what matter is, what mind is, what space is, what self-awareness is, what free-will is. It's amazing that you seem to know what it is that actually makes the decisions in your head. I think you are God for knowing things that nobody else on this planet knows.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Just because I know some things that you don't know doesn't mean that I know things that no-one else knows. For that to follow, I would have to be the smartest person in the world and you would have to be the second smartest.You overestimate yourself.

How would i end up being the second smartest person, when in fact i DID very clearly state that i don't know what these concepts really represent(i.e. i am with the 6.6 billion people that don't know)? What you just said makes as much sense as 1+2=12, and based on the attitude on this forum, atheists are supposed to be regarded as smart even outside their deluded circles.

If you were really unable to understand my post, then I can only suggest that you read it again. It was very simple, and rather shorter than your expression of incomprehension.If you remain unable to understand it, I suggest that you take up some less intellectually demanding hobby than participating on these forums.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There are quite a few people that know what those things are besides Dr. Adequate. Just becuase you don't know doesn't mean the rest of the planet is just as ignorant. Though I do suspect the majority is (regarding one or more of these subjects).

Please elaborate a little a bit more on this argument.I don't think your argument explains logic in its entirety. When I talk about logic, I'm not just talking about the laws of logic that apply to language, but very, very simple laws of logic, such as "a=a", which can be applied to nature. "a=a" is not a law of logic that came out of language, because "a=a" was true before humans were around. In fact, historical science must assume this when it theorizes about our origins, for a historical scientist never said "perhaps during the big bang, matter was not necessarily equivalent to itself". This would bring up an extreme difficulty, because obviously we can't imagine, nor understand, what it would mean for an object to be nonequivalent to itself.Another example is the law "if p then q, p is true, so q is true". Though this law does apply to language, it was still true before humans - and thus language - were around. Once again, historical scientists assume the truth of this law when they theorize about our origins. When theorizing about how our solar system formed, for instance, a scientist could make an argument like this: "if a star exploded, then the matter would spread out into a circular disc, and then begin to condense into planets etc.". So anyways, he assumes that this law applies to the proceedings of the universe that existed (or that he thinks exists) before he was around.And just to make sure nobody is confused, I am not a proponent of the big bang hypothesis, nor any other "evolutionary" hypothesis which attempts to explain our origin. I believe God created the universe and all that is therein in six, 24-hour days. Certainly the formalized laws of logic are human constructs, but are the intrinsic truths of such laws human constructs? If not, where did they come from?

Explain how "a=a" was derived from natural language? And when I talk about "a=a", I'm not talking about the symbols, but I'm talking about the intrinsic truth in the statement "a=a". "A=a" is true, it has always been true, and it always will be true. Humans didn't have to formalize it for it to be true, period. Ummm...yeah!

Dr. Adequate, Then you should have answered "the brain [controls the actions of the brain]". But you didn't answer the question because you know what the logical conclusion is. So try answering the question again.If you asked "who controls the actions of the soul", I would say, "the soul". Do you really think that self-awareness is a chemical reaction? Or that love is a chemical reaction? Not sure what you mean. Please explain it in a little more detail. The soul does not directly control the body. The soul controls the brain, which controls the body. So if the brain is injured, the soul has no means of controlling the body.

Dr. Adequate, You seem to always assume that my arguments are stupid, without actually thinking about my argument first. My argument was this: you depend on the reliability of your memory quite often. If you touch a burner, and get burnt as a result, chances are that you will never purposely touch a burner again. So what reason do you have for depending on the reliability of your memory? No, our memory isn't always reliable, but we do depend on it being reliable at least some times. If we never depended on our memory, how would we ever know what to do? How do you know that when you push down a key on the keyboard, it will make a letter pop up on the screen? How do you know that you have fingers without looking down at them constantly to make sure they're still there? How do you know that you can control the actions of your fingers? You must rely on your memory in these cases.So anyways, I never, ever, ever said that our memory is always reliable. The fact that our memory is sometimes unreliable is a result of sin (and btw, I would be interested to hear your explanation for the unreliability of our memory). What I am asking is you is what is your reason for depending on your memory (as you do very much). How do you know that your memory is reliable (or at least sometimes) without first assuming that it is reliable?

quote:

---

I don't think your argument explains logic in its entirety.

---

I think that you will find that it does. What you need to understand is that logic applies only to language. Truth and falsity are properties of statements, not of reality. What would it mean to say that a rock was "false" in the strict logical sense of falsity ?

quote:

---

When I talk about logic, I'm not just talking about the laws of logic that apply to language, but very, very simple laws of logic, such as "a=a", which can be applied to nature. "a=a" is not a law of logic that came out of language, because "a=a" was true before humans were around. In fact, historical science must assume this when it theorizes about our origins, for a historical scientist never said "perhaps during the big bang, matter was not necessarily equivalent to itself". This would bring up an extreme difficulty, because obviously we can't imagine, nor understand, what it would mean for an object to be nonequivalent to itself.

---

Again it is all about language - you can't escape it. Science attempts to DESCRIBE reality - and thus it must use language. And logic applies to statements made about the past in the same way as it does to statements made about the present. It is the situation at the time the statement is spoken or written that matters.

quote:

---

Another example is the law "if p then q, p is true, so q is true". Though this law does apply to language, it was still true before humans - and thus language - were around.

---

More accurately it still applies to statements made ABOUT such a time. Let me note that "if". "then" and "else" are [i]words

quote:

---

Certainly the formalized laws of logic are human constructs, but are the intrinsic truths of such laws human constructs? If not, where did they come from?

---

The underlying concepts come from natural language as I have stated before. That is all.

Dr. Adequate, I really am sick of how nit-picky everyone is on here about my terminology. The big bang is supposedly a very, very rapid expansion of matter, so in that sense, it is a sort or explosion. But if you want me to call it a rapid expansion of matter, then I will do so, and ease your fears. And yes that "rapid expansion of matter" did cause everything I mentioned, because if the "matter had never rapidly expanded", then we wouldn't have any of the things I mentioned...you might actually have to use a logical progression to come to this conclusion (think of that?). The "rapid expansion of matter" caused stars to form, causing solar systems to form, causing planets to form, causing amino acids to form, causing proteins to form, causing cells to form, causing multi-celled objects to form, causing fish to form, causing turtles to form, causing mammals to form, and then eventually, we came along, and we then constructed the laws of logic which somehow miraculously fit in with the whole world around us, and we were somehow able to sense beauty etc....And lest you go and quote me out of context, I'll clarify, and tell you that that was a bunch of rhetoric. The next time I see a monkey staring at a sunset as if it was enjoying it, then maybe I'll believe they do. But you still didn't answer how we have an aesthetic sense...Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Explain how "a=a" was derived from natural language?

---

To put it simply if you say something and I say the same thing you would naturally assume that we agree. That is the basis.Unfortunately natural language can be ambiguous so your assumption might be wrong - what I meant might be different from what you meant.To be more precise this law means "A proposition has the same truth-value as itself". And to use it properly we have to avoid ambiguity - formalise our use of language.

This is ridiculous and depicts very correctly the basis for the atheist philosophy - a worldview based on obsolete 19 century concepts. The fact that you are certain you understand some of those concepts proves how deluded some of you(most?) are. No Nobel Prize winner would claim to know what ANY of those concepts ttruly represent, but obviously it's not a hindrance for the kindergarten you have setup here.