Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:54 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,101 Year: 9,137/19,786 Month: 1,559/2,119 Week: 319/576 Day: 122/98 Hour: 6/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2881 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 196 of 230 (545833)
02-05-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
02-05-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Existence
The lightning bolt is a bunch of negatve electrons and positive positrons getting together and doing their thing.

Lightning is not due to matter-antimatter annihilation.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 12:23 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 6:07 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 197 of 230 (545845)
02-05-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Apothecus
02-04-2010 9:10 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
WTF? So since you didn't address this in my last reply, I'll ask again: are you or are you not employing assumptions when addressing reality and existence, those same assumptions that apparently give you DTs any time you're confronted with any poor soul who's "making the leap of faith?"

What faith??? I could be wrong about reality and existence and as you can see from my wording, it was meant to be the best GUESS i have. I don't have the strong convictions that my assumptions are necessarily correct on untestable propositions that most of you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Apothecus, posted 02-04-2010 9:10 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 198 of 230 (545847)
02-05-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by DevilsAdvocate
02-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
So are you saying that philosophers and scientists are retards?

I said:

They are not retards who directly shoot for impossible targets like existence?

Do you need a dictionary definition of "NOT"? Do you have a point beside misunderstaning "yes" and "no"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 8:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2010 8:15 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 199 of 230 (545848)
02-05-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by onifre
02-05-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Existence
Hi oni,

Is there any knowledge past T=0 where General Relativity breaks down and can not say anything as the math does not make sense?

If not there is no evidence for anything past T=0. It is all Metaphysics.

onifre writes:

Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them.

Provide evidence to support this assertion........

Why do I need to provide evidence for an "IF" statement?

Are you so dense or educated that you can not understand if I create something I have to exist before I can create it?

onifre writes:

They had to exist before the universe began to exist.

Provide evidence to support this assertion........

This is still part of the "IF" statement.

IF they created the universe by collision they had to exist prior to the universe beginning to exist.

Are you so dense or educated that you can not understand that for the branes to create the universe they had to exist prior to the universe?

onifre writes:

Therefore they are outside of the universe we live in which is a place we have no knowledge about.

Provide evidence to support this assertion........

This is still part of the "IF" statement.

If they created the universe they are outside of the universe.

If they are outside of the universe then they are outside of our knowledge. You have told me yourself there is nothing outside of the universe.

Now if the two braned "BECAME" the universe that is another story which I did not coment on.

onifre writes:

You give us nonsense once again, ICANT.

I can't help it if you are so educated that you can not understand plain English.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by onifre, posted 02-05-2010 4:18 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2010 8:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 2:39 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 209 by onifre, posted 02-08-2010 5:37 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 200 of 230 (545849)
02-05-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate
02-04-2010 8:33 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
So basically are you saying that because we can't understand all of reality we should automatically assume there is a supernatural being called 'God' that runs the universe?

No, i am saying that you can make 187987989 0980 assumptions(this the 122nd time i am stating this!). There is really nothing wrong with that, AS LONG AS you are aware that you are making those assumptions. Whether existence is natural or supernatural is somethig we cannot test.

Is this really your premise? If so then you are falling into a common logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (argument from ignorance).

That is actually what you are doing - insisting that your beliefs are more valid than others.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 8:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2010 8:22 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 201 of 230 (545852)
02-05-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Seems to basically boild down to Solipsism to me!

No, it boils down to... " I exist". Think about it. Now think more about it. There is an I that exists. If you are not asking - WTF is this, you are not really thinking.

If you think you understand reality and existence... you don't! You also don't really understand matter, time, free will, consciousness, space, life. Nobody does! Make as many assumptions about anything, just be aware that you are making them and don't be too categorical. Nobel prize winners aren't categorical when they speak about matter, time, free will, consciousness, space, life, reality and existence. We don't have the fundamental knowledge that you desire, be more humble and perceptive towards what you experience. The universe is stranger than you can imagine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2010 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2010 12:31 PM MatterWave has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 202 of 230 (545853)
02-05-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by lyx2no
02-05-2010 4:43 PM


Re:Annihilation
Hi lyx2no,

Why don't you start a thread and explain to me how negatve electrons in the cloud and positive positrons under the cloud and on the ground does not generate the lightning bolt.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by lyx2no, posted 02-05-2010 4:43 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 203 of 230 (545867)
02-05-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by MatterWave
02-05-2010 5:29 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Do you need a dictionary definition of "NOT"? Do you have a point beside misunderstaning "yes" and "no"?

But philosophers and scientists DO contemplate and study 'impossible targets like existence' (also known as ontology). I guess Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Russell, Sartre, Spinoza, Einstein and many, many other scientists and philosophers are retards. Because they very much did and still do contemplate and study the nature of existence of both the universe itself and the things within our universe.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:29 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 204 of 230 (545868)
02-05-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by MatterWave
02-05-2010 5:33 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
No, i am saying that you can make 187987989 0980 assumptions(this the 122nd time i am stating this!). There is really nothing wrong with that, AS LONG AS you are aware that you are making those assumptions.

What assumption are you accusing of me making?

Whether existence is natural or supernatural is somethig we cannot test.

What is your definitions of natural and supernatural?

That is actually what you are doing - insisting that your beliefs are more valid than others.

When did I do this? What beliefs are you accusing that I am inisting on being more valid?


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:33 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 205 of 230 (545869)
02-05-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by ICANT
02-05-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Existence
Iano,

You do understand that there can be no 'before T=0' because T=0 means when spacetime itself began. How can there be time before time? Cause and effect do not exist and have no meaning outside of time itself.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 5:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 206 of 230 (545936)
02-06-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by MatterWave
02-05-2010 5:41 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Seems to basically boild down to Solipsism to me!

No, it boils down to... " I exist". Think about it. Now think more about it. There is an I that exists. If you are not asking - WTF is this, you are not really thinking.

By bad... you're pushing Solipsism with a splash of cogito ergo sum

If you think you understand reality and existence... you don't! You also don't really understand matter, time, free will, consciousness, space, life. Nobody does!

Right. We can't really KNOW anything. That's Solipsism.

And its totally ghey.

Seriously, dude. This is, like, freshman level philosophy n'stuff.

ZOMG! You're soooooo profound n'junk

It might impress the other little freshman girlies, but we're way smarter than that here, and you're just making yourself look like a moron.

Make as many assumptions about anything, just be aware that you are making them and don't be too categorical. Nobel prize winners aren't categorical when they speak about matter, time, free will, consciousness, space, life, reality and existence.

I would like you to explain how I have been categorical and in what ways the nobel prize winner are different. It looks like you're just making stuff up, now.

We don't have the fundamental knowledge that you desire, be more humble and perceptive towards what you experience. The universe is stranger than you can imagine.

pfft. We have a rover on mars, man. We get this shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:41 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Apothecus, posted 02-08-2010 7:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 217 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 207 of 230 (545989)
02-07-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by ICANT
02-05-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Existence
Why do I need to provide evidence for an "IF" statement?

Because it might be completely untrue.

Suppose you said: "IF my username is IAMWRONGABOUTEVERYTHING, then all pigs have wings".

People would call you on that, of course. They'd point out that your premise is wrong, and your conclusion is wrong, and your logic is wrong ... and then you could get on your highest of all horses and ask: "Why do I need to provide evidence for an "IF" statement?"

You need at the very least to provide a genuine logical connection between the "if" clause and the "then" clause.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 5:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 208 of 230 (545992)
02-07-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by onifre
02-04-2010 5:16 PM


Maps Mountains Elephants Commonality and Reality
Well said.

I always knew you were one of the more discerning participants here

I actually do place a lot of importance on dreams myself. I've tried many different mind altering states (both natural and with drugs) and it can be awesome. Extremely awesome. I've studied a lot as well on dream states, REM and consciousness, etc. I honestly find approaching it without supernatural elements to be a lot more fascinating than imagining supernatural realms and things like that.

Interesting stuff. And to further the point in this context - The human psychology that leads to such experiences (i.e. dreams and other wholly subjective experiences) is common to the whole of humanity. So if we are looking for commonality as the best approach to explaining widespread aspects of religious experiences and belief it is the commonality of human psychology and brain physiology that we should be turning to. NOT the claim that there is an undefined common supernatural "something" that various religions are interpreting differently. As seems to be the deistic argument with the whole maps and mountains thing (or the whole blind men and an elephant thing - same difference)

Reality and nature are so much more intriguing than invisible things that can't be experienced, but only believed in. IMO.

Well said. See I can be discerning too.

With regard to "What is supernatural?" I think the key difference between the two camps here is that one side just assumes that there is some sort of non-empirical reality and the other considers it to be obvious that all the evidence indicates that the entire concept of non-empirical reality is an entirely human invention. On the believers side we have: (as RAZ put it elsewhere)

RAZD writes:

An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses. There can also be rare events that cannot be replicated and due to chaotic circumstances among other reasons. Message 393

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 5:16 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 209 of 230 (546128)
02-08-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by ICANT
02-05-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Existence
Is there any knowledge past T=0 where General Relativity breaks down and can not say anything as the math does not make sense?

There are hypotheses in the field of theoretical physics.

Why do I need to provide evidence for an "IF" statement?

Are you so dense or educated that you can not understand if I create something I have to exist before I can create it?

You stated: "Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them."

Ok. Now provide evidence that shows that branes cannot by a part of this universe if the universe was created by two collisions of them. In other words, WHY? Why can't branes be a part of this universe if they created this universe?

Don't play word games, ICANT. You made a statement.

Are you so dense or educated that you can not understand that for the branes to create the universe they had to exist prior to the universe?

Actaully, no, I don't understand that at all. Can you please explain it, and, provide evidence for what you claim.

Now if the two braned "BECAME" the universe that is another story which I did not coment on.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 5:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 576 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 210 of 230 (546140)
02-08-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by New Cat's Eye
02-06-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Hey C.S.

CS writes:

Right. We can't really KNOW anything. That's Solipsism.

And its totally ghey.

This is essentially what I've been trying to tell MW. This was a good, interesting topic before Mr. Threadjacker sunk his claws into it. When his basic arguments were effectively skewered, God unnecessarily entered the equation, thereby muddying the waters substantially. Since then it's become one useless, non-pertinent post after another from him, speaking purely from the standpoint that it just doesn't matter. Freshman level philosophical B.S., indeed.

I really think if someone (it may have taken more than two or three replies in this vein) would have said:

CS writes:

You're soooooo profound n'junk

he would have felt his drift was gotten, and left it at that. I should have just said, "Trippy!" or "Far out!" or something like that. Instead, idiots like me found themselves sucked in, just to make the point that the discussion was pointless.

What I still don't get, however, is why the zeal? Why all the concern that we're all just making assumptions when considering existence, but that it's OK "as long as you realize you're making them"? Surely MW can discern the difference between knowledge and belief (or acceptance). When one accepts that the most likely conclusion (assumption) is that everything we see is not supernatural, is that really making a "leap of faith", or is it just that since we really can't know this for certain, beliefs are all we have to go on? I can accept that our universe is "queerer that we can imagine" (hence my signature) but I also accept (or believe, if you wish) that we exist in a natural realm. Call it an assumption if you want, but can we really not assume we exist in something other than the supernatural? Yes, I get it that some say we just can't know, but what's the use of not assuming? The alternative IMO is to end up like MatterWave, hopping around with his undies in a knot, although I'd be surprised if, deep down, he didn't actually make the same assumptions he argues so vehemently against. Anyway, it's useless, pointless trying to argue the position; it's a thought experiment and that's about it. Let's discuss "Last Thursdayism" instead. Same type of argument, except that one's way more fun.

pfft. We have a rover on mars, man. We get this shit.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2010 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 10:17 AM Apothecus has not yet responded
 Message 218 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:39 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019