Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 123 of 305 (366131)
11-26-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
11-25-2006 11:13 AM


Re: continuing Primary, Secondary and Alternate knowldege.
Hello,
I'd like to examine the question of Gods existance from a slightly different angle. I'd like to know:
To what branch of knowledge do we turn to answer or examine the question "Does God exist?"
I mean by this, doesn't the nature of the object which we are trying to examine necessetate the branch of knowledge to which we must turn for an answer, i.e. if I want to know about the structure of atomic nuclei, I go to the physicist. If I want to know about Julius Ceaser or Nero, I must go to the historian. If I want to know the truth about certain equations I must go to the mathmatician. Wouldn't it be silly of me to go to the mathmetician and say: "Prove to me that Julius Ceaser existed by using your mathmatical methodology.
Every branch of knowledge informs us about a different aspect of reality. My question, then, is:
To what branch of knowledge do we turn to examin the question of God's existance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2006 11:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 7:07 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 127 of 305 (366388)
11-27-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
11-26-2006 7:07 PM


Re: to examine the question of God's existance
“For a non-biased [examination we should consult] philosophy.”
I agree with you. It is ridiculous to ask the empirical scientist “Does God exist?”
There is no branch of science that even asks the question.
Science gives us great manipulative power over matter and mastery over nature.
But, it cant approach this question of God or many other questions that lie outside its sphere of inquiry.
I’m not downplaying science.. But, the productive utility of science derives from its accurate description of the way matter behaves.
If you want to know how to get better television reception, or how to breed healthier cows, you must go to the scientist. But, if you want to know the answer to more ultimate questions like “What is a good life?” or “What is a just society?” or “What are the order of goods?” or “What is the nature and destiny of mankind?” or “Does only matter exist?” or “Is there a God?” you must go to the philosopher.
The conduct of human life and the organization of society depend on our answers to these questions. The moral utility of philosophy derives not from its technical or productive utility “like science” but from its profound understanding of the ultimate realities that underlie the natural phenomena which science studies. Each kind of knowledge (scientific and philosophical) answers questions that the other cannot answer; that is why each is useful in a different way. If you want to know how to split the atom, you must go to the scientist. But, if you are concerned with the kinds of questions that give purpose and meaning to human existence, science cannot help you. You must go to the philosopher.
I want to respectfully challenge your statement “the best logic can do is get to agnostic [ism]”
If by agnosticism you mean that philosophy cannot draw a rational conclusion about God’s existence, you are wrong. In the tradition of western thought, arguing (I mean this word in the medieval sense of marshalling evidence and advancing reasons) for the existence of God began with the ancient Greek and can be found in the philosophical writings of both Plato and Aristotle. Plato in the tenth book of his dialog entitled the Laws, and Aristotle in the eighth book of his Physics and the twelfth book of his Metaphysics and in all three texts the philosophical conclusion reached by purely rational thought is that God does exist.
This they concluded without any influence from the church or articles of religious faith by using reason and reason alone, they discovered that God does exist, that He is one, not many, that He is independent unconditioned and uncaused, permanent and everlasting. In fact, in a fiercely polytheistic society they concluded that God is one. One of the charges against Socrates is that he did not believe in the many Greek gods. He was executed by the Athenians court for corrupting the youth on this matter. These and many other of their conclusions are quite harmonious with biblical revelation. I think this should give unbelievers reason to pause.
My question to you is: Why do you believe that the rational grounds for affirming Gods existence is insufficient?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 7:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2006 10:45 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 132 of 305 (366871)
11-29-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
11-27-2006 10:45 PM


Re: to examine the question of God's existance
Thank you for your responses.
You say that you believe the position for atheism is "strong" and "logical". Can you explain this position to me?
1. What are your logical grounds for atheism?
your logic just proved that the earth is flat...
I'm a bit baffled to say the least at your conclusion here. I truly have no idea how you reached this conclusion.
2. Could you explain how you reached the above conclusion?
I was simply commenting on you suggestion that we should go to the philosopher if we want to examine the question of God's existence. You said we should go to the philosopher but that you believed that ultimately you didn't think that the philosopher could answer the question. I then pointed out to you that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates (I could have listed many more) did indeed answer the question and they concluded that God does exist based not on faith but logic.
Now I didn't defend their position I simply asked why you thought philosophy must end in agnosticism when so many philosophers concluded that God exists?
this shows that your logical structure is false
3. What shows that my logical structure is false?
and a logical fallacy
4. What logical fallacy have I committed?
unbelievers for which religion?"
I wasn't speaking about a religion, I was speaking about theism. I simply mean that great thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Locke, Aquinas, Kant, C.S. Lewis, Anthony Flew and Rene Descartes and many others offer logical and thoughtful answers to the question "Does God exist?" And that atheists ("unbelievers") would be well advised to consider what they have to say. When I say "pause" I mean "stop and think."
why would you think that your belief should get special treatment?"
5. To which of my beliefs are you refering? And, for what special treatment do you think I am asking?
Given that your 'conclusion' is falsified...
6. To what conclusion are you referring and why do you think it has been falsified?
You said that my logic is based on "missing precepts."
7. Would you list the precepts missing in my logic? I am curious to find out what you mean by this.
why should anyone be concerned at all with what you think?
I'm not sure what I said that has provoked such an angry question but the answer is: de vertate disputandum est, "about matters of truth, dispute is fruitful."
Thank you for your patience and I hope you have the time to answer all seven questions. I would like an answer to each one even if you have to take several posts to do it. Thank you again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2006 10:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2006 8:24 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 136 of 305 (367731)
12-04-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by RAZD
11-30-2006 8:24 PM


Re: to examine the question of God's existance
"Go back and look at your...conclusion"
I told you what my conclusion was. It was a very modest conclusion. I'll try yet again. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and a host of others condluded their examination on the question of God's existence by asserting theism not agnosticism (as you erroneously claim they must). It might comfort you emotionally to believe that they were agnostics, but they were not. Their logic did not force them "to agnostic[ism]" as you said it must. Further, I did not ever condlude that these theistic philosophers were right or that agnostic philosophers were wrong. I simply said that their examination of the question "Does God exist?" did not cause them to embrace agnosticism. My condlustion is quite valid. Why you continue to emotionally invest into my statement something I never said and then become emotionally inflamed by your own investment is very curious.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle...were theists not agnostics. Your insistence that I concluded anything more than this does not make it so.
You justify your refusal to answer my questions with the following statement:
"If you can't see the glaring error, [what's the] point"
When I was in the 5th grade, the bully in the school used to pick on me. His name was Floyd Leblanc. I'm sure you know the type. He was angry at the world, always sarcastic and rude. He would call people names, insult them, push them around call them stupid and laugh. (sound familiar?) I finally got tired of the insults and stood up to him only to discover that he was a coward: "I would fight you," he said, "but what's the point; I would only get my clothes dirty."
Nice try.
"Angry? You posted a bunch of opinions..."
My opinion that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists not agnostics is a true and defensable opinion. On the other hand, the opinion (which you would like me to defend) that "Scocrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists; therefore, this proves that God exists and the Bible is true" is silly, and no reasonable person would embrace it. Since neither you nor I embrace this silly notion, why not move on and converse like adults about important matters?
"your point was invalidated"
Once again, you never even addressed my point. My point was that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were theists not agnostics. The only point you invalidated was the straw man that you constructed. In order to invalidate MY point, you must demonstrate that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, were agnostics. You are clearly wrong on this. They were theists. If you continue to insist that they were agnostic, then show your evidence or concede the point that you are wrong.
"Please quote correctly"
I did quote correctly. I put quotation marks around the two words that you used in reference to atheism: "strong" and "logical." If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have used these words. If you did mean it, then you shouldn't be afraid to respond and defend your statement (as you seem to be). If you're afraid to respond and defend what you clearly said, then (as you have so elequently stated elsewhere) "why should anyone be concerned with what you think?"
Unfortunately, I have found that, perhaps like you, most people simply harbor cherished opinions and are afraid to submit those opinions to rational analysis. I wonder why you're hesitant to answer my seven questions? I'm perfectly willing to answer ANY question you ask.
It takes the semantic sophistication of a 6 year old to figure this one out. I hope you wont run away like Floyd Leblanc did. I ask kindly once again for you to "Answer the 7 questions".
P.S. "The glory of man is his intellect; the perfection of the intellect his greatest good."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2006 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2006 7:59 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 140 of 305 (369308)
12-12-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by RAZD
12-04-2006 7:59 PM


Re: pointless argument from logical fallacy after logical fallacy
Your argument is that two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god, therefore god.
I concluded no such thing. In fact, I specifically said that neither you nor I embrace such a rediculous notion, so why not move on like adults to important matters. This could easily be resolved by you showing me where I said such a silly thing. But you won't of course. You will continue to pretend that I said something that you know I never said. And, we both know why you are doing it. No amount of pedanting can change the facts. Nice try.
"It is to the glory of God to have as enemies men so unreasonable." Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2006 7:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2006 5:53 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 142 of 305 (369732)
12-14-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
12-12-2006 5:53 PM


Re: pointless argument from logical fallacy after logical fallacy
The reason you can't find anywhere on any of my posts the statement: "Plato and Aristotle were theists; therefore, God exists" is because I never said it nor meant to imply it as I have tried to clarify numerous times. What I said was: Plato and Aristitle were theists; therefore, they were not agnostics." You have spent needless time and energy proving that something I never said is false. As I told you several times, I am in complete agreement with you on this point. Just because Plato and Aristotle and a host of other great philosophers condluded philosophically that God exists, this doesn't prove that God exists. In fact I specifically told you that no reasonable person would embrace such a ridiculous notion. I went on to say that since you and I agree on this point, why not move on like adults to more important matters? You need not continue to say I believe something I never said. In fact, I am an expert at what I believe; let me take you there. To important matters:
You seem extremely well versed in philosophy. Can you tell me--what is a contingent being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2006 5:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 9:47 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 144 of 305 (369966)
12-15-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
12-14-2006 9:47 PM


Re: how about .... the topic?
Can you tell me what reality is?
Yes, that which exists outside the mind.
How do you know that you know what you know?
To answer your question I must know what you mean by knowledge. When I say that I know something, I mean that I possess some truth about it.
1. Is this what you mean?
I think the two extremes that should be avoided is the extreme which says that nothing is knowable at all and the other extreme of saying that everything is equally knowable.
I think self-evident truths (what the ancients called necessary truths) are the only truths we can know with certitude and finality, i.e. the whole is always greater than any on of its parts (50% of a thing is always less than 100% of that same thing). You know it and I know it.
But there is also knowledge we can have that is not as certain as a self-evident truth- these are things we know with less certitude and incorrigibility as a self-evident truth- these are well founded opinions based on evidence and reasons and sufficient probative force to justify claiming the opinion we affirm is true even though it is not self evidently true, i.e., if you jump off a 500 story building you will be killed. The truth of this statement is based on a preponderance of evidence even though it is not self-evident.
I think that science, history, and philosophy give us knowledge in this sense, well-founded opinion based on evidence and reasons and probative force.
I think your question about reality is relevant here. I think William James is correct when he says that two things are necessary for knowledge to take place: One- a knower (that's you and I) and two- a thing that can be known (that's reality)
2. Do you agree?
3. Would you agree with me that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth?
Edited by zaron, : typo errors needed correcting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 9:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 10:46 PM zaron has replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 145 of 305 (369982)
12-15-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
12-12-2006 5:53 PM


Re: pointless argument from logical fallacy after logical fallacy
zaron writes:
Plato in the tenth book of his dialog entitled the Laws, and Aristotle in the eighth book of his Physics and the twelfth book of his Metaphysics and in all three texts the philosophical conclusion reached by purely rational thought is that God does exist.
That is your statement that "two philosophers from over 2000 years ago concluded god"
One final comment on this. I did indeed say that. It was to show the error of your thinking that philosophy only ended in agnosticism. History clearly shows that it had not. I showed you that.
Same post writes:
My question to you is: Why do you believe that the rational grounds for affirming Gods existence is insufficient?
The reason for this question was to try and understand why you held the opinion that philosophy ended in agnosticism. You apparently have the opinion for a reason. I was simply wanting to know it.
I told you that two philosophers concluded God after you told me you believe philosophy ends in agnosticism. Don't you understand why I would ask that final question?
That is your affirmation that "therefore god" is a logical conclusion, it comes after a paragraph of why you find it amazing as well.
You assumed my beliefs by a question that I asked you.
If I told you that some people think frogs are green and you responded with "I don't think some people think that."
If I then named those that do hold that belief and then asked you why you think that frogs are not green, does that automatically mean that I believe frogs are green?
How foolish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2006 5:53 PM RAZD has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 147 of 305 (370367)
12-17-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by warner
10-31-2006 6:01 PM


Re: philos+sophy -- perceptions of what you see based on what you know
hey!!! I'm back! Finally. You guys keeping it "real" in here?
Wherever "here" is and whatever "real" is! LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by warner, posted 10-31-2006 6:01 PM warner has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 148 of 305 (370786)
12-18-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by RAZD
12-15-2006 10:46 PM


Re: truth and reality
You didn't answer my first question: "When I say that I know something, I mean that I possess some truth about it. Is this what you mean?" If your answer is "Yes," then we can continue.
If your answer is "NO," then you must tell me what you mean by knowledge.
1. Again, when you say you know something, do you mean you possess some truth about it? Yes or no. You seem to reply "yes."
You say : "I think ... this set is small and inconsequential, and that with a little effort one can find exceptions to any such rule."
You say you can "with little effort" find an exception to these necessary or self-evident truths; but you failed to give me your example.
2. Can you give me once example in which 50% of a thing is not less than 100% of that same thing?
You say: "I would add someone who agrees with the knower."
Even if no one from Lucretius to Newton agreed with Einstein that the atom was divisible, did that effect the facts of the matter? Why would anyone have to agree with Einstein for his assertion to be true?
3. If no one believed Einstein about the divisibility of the atom, would it still be true that the atom is divisible?
You say "But it is not sufficient..."
My question to you was "Would you agree with me that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth?"
You didn't answer my question, but you implied "yes."
4. Am I correct in assuming that you think that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth but you, in addition, believe there are other tests of truth?
5. Can you tell me: What are these other tests of truth by which we can obtain knowledge of a reality that exists independantly of the human mind?
You say: "How do we test this?"
We're getting there. Be patient and answer my questions.
You say: Can I trust an honest answer from you..?"
Yes.
You say: "Can you demonstrate that my conclusion is false?"
Yes. Truth is discoverable by reason.
Sincerely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 10:46 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by zaron, posted 12-24-2006 12:11 PM zaron has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 149 of 305 (371998)
12-24-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by zaron
12-18-2006 11:06 PM


Re: truth and reality
Hear from you after the holidays I suppose.
Have a good one friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by zaron, posted 12-18-2006 11:06 PM zaron has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 151 of 305 (373152)
12-31-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by RAZD
12-25-2006 9:55 PM


Re: What about my questions???
I'm not sure why your not answering my questions. I'm trying to keep them simple and to the point.
Remember I'm simply asking you questions about your statements, could you please help me communicate with you by answering the simple questions. I don't mind talking about anything you like but I must make sure I'm understanding what you are saying and that you understand what I'm saying.
So again I will ask these questions:
"When I say that I know something, I mean that I possess some truth about it.
IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN?"
If your answer is "Yes," then we can continue.
If your answer is "NO," then you must tell me what you mean by KNOWLEDGE.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS:
1. when you say you know something, do you mean you possess some truth about it? Yes or no. You seem to reply "yes."
NEXT:
You say : "I think ... this set is small and inconsequential, and that with a little effort one can find exceptions to any such rule."
You say you can "with little effort" find an exception to these necessary or self-evident truths; but you DID NOT give me your example of these exceptions to these necessary or self-evident truths.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS:
2. Can you give me one example in which 50% of a thing is not less than 100% of that same thing?
NEXT:
You say: "I would add someone who agrees with the knower."
I SAID:
Even if no one from Lucretius to Newton agreed with Einstein that the atom was divisible, did that effect the facts of the matter? Why would anyone have to agree with Einstein for his assertion to be true?
MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS:
3. If no one believed Einstein about the divisibility of the atom, would it still be true that the atom is divisible?
NEXT:
You say "But it is not sufficient..."
My question to you was "Would you agree with me that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth?"
You didn't answer my question, but you IMPLIED "yes."
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS:
4. Am I correct in assuming that you think that the law of contradiction is an important test of truth but you, in addition, believe there are other tests of truth?
5. Can you tell me: What are these other tests of truth by which we can obtain knowledge of a reality that exists independantly of the human mind?
You say: "How do we test this?"
I thought we were getting there. But if I'm the only one answering questions in our discussion then we will not get very far.
I told you to be patient but it looks like I'm the one that will need patience at this rate.
You say: Can I trust an honest answer from you..?"
I'm beginning to wonder if I will even GET an answer from you.
You say: "Can you demonstrate that my conclusion is false?"
My answer to that will always be the same:
Yes. Truth is discoverable by reason.
Looking forward to reasoning with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2006 9:55 PM RAZD has not replied

zaron
Junior Member (Idle past 6284 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 156 of 305 (374039)
01-03-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by RAZD
12-25-2006 9:55 PM


Re: Another take on the issue:
Did you post all of this to prove that we do not know everything therefore we cannot know anything?
You are a contrary man. The words you profess to believe you live as though you do not. The words that I profess, you live by them and deny it with your mouth.
You harbor cherished opinions and then refuse to submit them to rational analysis as evidenced by the fact that you make bold statements and fail to answer my questions concerning your statements.
You pitch me your belief and when I swing and hit and send the ball back, you dodge it and leave the field.
Surely you know that we cannot establish any kind of truth at this rate. Perhaps that is good for you for it falls right in line with your thinking. That we cannot know. You behave as though you don't want to know and don't want to admit you know the things that you do.
You cannot draw a round square no matter how hard you try. You cannot even imagine it. There is no time when a part is greater than its whole. You live by these principles I can prove that. You claim such truths are easy enough to find exceptions to but you blatantly refuse to give me those exceptions.
It is at this time that a man says, he was wrong to say such a thing. You cannot claim you did not say it therefore you must be a man and admit you were wrong to say it. It is human to have error. It is manly to be able to admit to it and then go on to further learning. If you cannot, then you must do what you said and give me the examples that you can easily find and then we might be able to go a step further in our adventure of truth seeking. Perhaps you know somebody likeminded with you that can help you out a bit to help get this ball rolling at a steady even pace.
There is no shame in error, but shame on those who embrace it.
sicerely,
zaron

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2006 9:55 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024