Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
29 online now:
DrJones*, Guido Arbia, Theodoric (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,832 Year: 18,868/19,786 Month: 1,288/1,705 Week: 94/446 Day: 94/64 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is it possible that....
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 31 of 55 (17427)
09-14-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Me
09-13-2002 7:10 AM


[QUOTE][B]At least one A Priori object and an Intention![/QUOTE]

[/B]

I think that the truth of the existance of the observer is a synthetic a priori statement because intentionality is contingent upon it. However I feel that the existance of God is an a posteriori truth. The core of most of my argument though against strong atheism is that the existance of God is a logical possibility therefore the principles of justified true belief, evidentialism, and their kin, while they work fine in science, are insufficient for a complete model of the universe. Of course, my position is non-falsifiable!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Me, posted 09-13-2002 7:10 AM Me has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nos482, posted 09-14-2002 7:26 PM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 55 (17428)
09-14-2002 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by gene90
09-14-2002 7:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]At least one A Priori object and an Intention![/QUOTE]

[/B]

I think that the truth of the existance of the observer is a synthetic a priori statement because intentionality is contingent upon it. However I feel that the existance of God is an a posteriori truth. The core of most of my argument though against strong atheism is that the existance of God is a logical possibility therefore the principles of justified true belief, evidentialism, and their kin, while they work fine in science, are insufficient for a complete model of the universe. Of course, my position is non-falsifiable!


If that is so than the existence of the tooth fairy is a logical possibility as well since she has just as much evidence in favor of her existence as your god does. Many people have also believed in her existence for many centuries and much has been written about her as well. You probably believed in her at one time as well.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by gene90, posted 09-14-2002 7:06 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 09-14-2002 7:58 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 33 of 55 (17431)
09-14-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nos482
09-14-2002 7:26 PM


[QUOTE][B]If that is so than the existence of the tooth fairy is a logical possibility as well[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That is correct. The only way to refute a logical possibility is through internal contradiction. Evidence is irrelevant in modal logic, which deals with only possibilities, ie, blind speculation.

However you overlooked that I mentioned that it is my opinion that the existance of God is also an a posteriori truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nos482, posted 09-14-2002 7:26 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nos482, posted 09-14-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 55 (17434)
09-14-2002 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by gene90
09-14-2002 7:58 PM


Originally posted by gene90:


That is correct. The only way to refute a logical possibility is through internal contradiction. Evidence is irrelevant in modal logic, which deals with only possibilities, ie, blind speculation.

So, you must accept the possibility of the existence of a tooth fairy or else what you believe in is untrue.

However you overlooked that I mentioned that it is my opinion that the existance of God is also an a posteriori truth.

Please define "posteriori truth"?

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 09-14-2002 7:58 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by gene90, posted 09-14-2002 8:30 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 35 of 55 (17436)
09-14-2002 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nos482
09-14-2002 8:08 PM


[QUOTE][B]So, you must accept the possibility of the existence of a tooth fairy[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Yes, to the same extent one believes in the validity of modal logic. I see it as a first step to establishing the validity of a concept but it isn't enough alone. For example we can use it to rule out a flat sphere but not a purple cat.

[QUOTE][B]or else what you believe in is untrue.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Not necessarily because I am using more than modal logic. However modal logic undermines strong atheism. I may not believe in a tooth fairy but if there were a church that did it would be inappropriate to argue that they were incorrect, *and* my position would be as weak as their own and could only end in a stalemate (lack of evidence).

The inherent problem with using the tooth fairy as an analogy, and you apparently haven't noticed this, is that the tooth fairy hypothesis for the disappearance of childrens' teeth is testable and therefore not "really" supernatural...at least not without modification to the concept of the toothfairy (like providing it with omnicisience and omnipotence, ie, giving it the specific parameters assigned to God).

[QUOTE][B]Please define "posteriori truth"?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

An a posteriori truth can be determined by experience. This is that highly subjective spirit witness thing that you reject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nos482, posted 09-14-2002 8:08 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nos482, posted 09-14-2002 9:32 PM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 55 (17437)
09-14-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by gene90
09-14-2002 8:30 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

Yes, to the same extent one believes in the validity of modal logic. I see it as a first step to establishing the validity of a concept but it isn't enough alone. For example we can use it to rule out a flat sphere but not a purple cat.

But you seem to be stuck at this point without going on to the rest of the process.

BTW, a flat sphere is possible if it is represented on a 2D plane such as a sheet of paper or a video screen. Afterall, to you a representive of something is just as valid as the thing itself, because all you need is faith that it is true.

Have you read this yet? http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

This is basically what you are asking me to do.

Not necessarily because I am using more than modal logic. However modal logic undermines strong atheism. I may not believe in a tooth fairy but if there were a church that did it would be inappropriate to argue that they were incorrect, *and* my position would be as weak as their own and could only end in a stalemate (lack of evidence).

Just because some may set up a church around a belief that that makes it true?

Did you know that there is a religion setup around Elvis? Is he god?
Though, unlike your god the existence of Elvis can quite easily be proven without resorting to meaningless logic and word games.

The inherent problem with using the tooth fairy as an analogy, and you apparently haven't noticed this, is that the tooth fairy hypothesis for the disappearance of childrens' teeth is testable and therefore not "really" supernatural...at least not without modification to the concept of the toothfairy (like providing it with omnicisience and omnipotence, ie, giving it the specific parameters assigned to God).

There are more than one child at a time who lose their teeth and place then under the pillow so the tooth fairy must be in all places at once and know of every tooth lost, the same sort of assertion of your god.

Or, I could use the excuse that the tooth fairy works through the parents. Does this sound familiar?

An a posteriori truth can be determined by experience. This is that highly subjective spirit witness thing that you reject.

Is that a real physical experience which can be confirmed by objective means or an imaginary mental one which can't be and very well be a delusion? If mental than all dreams are true by your reasoning.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by gene90, posted 09-14-2002 8:30 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 09-15-2002 3:33 PM nos482 has responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 55 (17451)
09-15-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by countryLover198
07-27-2002 12:48 PM


NOTE ANSWER IS WITHIN MAGESTERIUM OF RELIGION OR [MOR]

It is possible for anyone to found a religion. Whether or not it gains world-wide acceptance such as New Age, Christanity, Judaism, Hinduism, or , you can still found a religion.

Christainity, let me see, it is founded upon the premise of testimony of people that we have little historical record outside the Bible. It works on an unconditional faith to all its tenents.

I once read that the founder of a certain religion - said the "Quickest way to get rich is to found your own religion". I will not state the religion here in case there is anybody from that religion. And that religion does pour in the money. And the founder is living it rich.

My personal opinion is that we all found our personal religions. How many people you do you that have combined many religions into one that means much to them. I have never met a Christain that was 100% Christain. NOTE I AM AN ATHEIST.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by countryLover198, posted 07-27-2002 12:48 PM countryLover198 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 11:00 AM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 55 (17452)
09-15-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by acmhttu001_2006
09-15-2002 10:48 AM


Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:

NOTE ANSWER IS WITHIN MAGESTERIUM OF RELIGION OR [MOR]

I once read that the founder of a certain religion - said the "Quickest way to get rich is to found your own religion". I will not state the religion here in case there is anybody from that religion. And that religion does pour in the money. And the founder is living it rich.

That was L. Ron Hubbard, a second rate SF writer, and the religion he made up was $cientology. He was living it rich, but he is dead now.

My personal opinion is that we all found our personal religions. How many people you do you that have combined many religions into one that means much to them. I have never met a Christain that was 100% Christain. NOTE I AM AN ATHEIST.

They're all 100% Christian since they all cut&paste everypart of their belief system. Or in other words they create their god in their own image.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-15-2002 10:48 AM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by gene90, posted 09-15-2002 3:43 PM nos482 has not yet responded
 Message 43 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:08 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 39 of 55 (17459)
09-15-2002 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nos482
09-14-2002 9:32 PM


[QUOTE][B]BTW, a flat sphere is possible if it is represented on a 2D plane such as a sheet of paper or a video screen.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Then you would have a representation of a sphere, not a true sphere. A flat sphere is a contradiction by most definitions of a sphere. We could play word games and imply that the representation of a sphere is a "virtual sphere" or we could imitate Plato (I think) and imply that no spheres in our world are real spheres but imitations of the sphere ideal, which only fits the definition of a sphere and therefore the 'flat sphere' is a representation of a representation and somewhat moot.

[QUOTE][B]This is basically what you are asking me to do.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Hank doesn't have a spiritual witness.

[QUOTE][B]Just because some may set up a church around a belief that that makes it true?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Not necessarily true, but necessarily impossible to prove false. Therefore atheism is not founded upon logic. In fact the entire position of atheism makes no sense to me at all.

[QUOTE][B]Though, unlike your god the existence of Elvis can quite easily be proven[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Not as easily as you might think. I say that because there would be believers that there was never any Elvis willing to claim anything no matter how strange: for example, that the guy shaking his pelvis in all the old Elvis videos was William Shakespeare.

[QUOTE][B]I could use the excuse that the tooth fairy works through the parents.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Which would be valid so long as it is taken in context. Similar to saying that all dreams are real, as they are all physical phenomena of the brain.

However you would, again, have to include God-like parameters in the toothfairy construct.

[QUOTE][B]Is that a real physical experience which can be confirmed by objective means or an imaginary mental one which can't be and very well be a delusion?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

It cannot be "imaginary" because it implies that the experience is invalid and an a posteriori truth must be correct to be sound. That would require the "imaginary" to be of equal value as the "real".

Also you're flirting with circularity here. If you want to conclude that God is not an a posteriori truth in order to support the belief that there is no God, then you must conclude that all witnesses of God are either imaginary or false, and the only clear support for either assertion is the use of the nonexistance of God as an axiom.

[QUOTE][B]If mental than all dreams are true by your reasoning.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

But all dreams are true, in their own context, because they happen. Relevancy of dream material to the waking world is a different matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nos482, posted 09-14-2002 9:32 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 5:03 PM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 40 of 55 (17461)
09-15-2002 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nos482
09-15-2002 11:00 AM


[QUOTE][B]My personal opinion is that we all found our personal religions. How many people you do you that have combined many religions into one that means much to them. I have never met a Christain that was 100% Christain[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Valid point. It is dependant upon how loosely "Christian" is defined. If the definition requires that the Christian be a Freewill Baptist then only Freewill Baptists are Christians. If Bob is the definition of a Christian then Bob is the only Christian.

But I think this is only another wordgame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 11:00 AM nos482 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:11 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 55 (17465)
09-15-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by gene90
09-15-2002 3:33 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

Then you would have a representation of a sphere, not a true sphere. A flat sphere is a contradiction by most definitions of a sphere. We could play word games and imply that the representation of a sphere is a "virtual sphere" or we could imitate Plato (I think) and imply that no spheres in our world are real spheres but imitations of the sphere ideal, which only fits the definition of a sphere and therefore the 'flat sphere' is a representation of a representation and somewhat moot.

I see that you're unwilling to accept the possibility.

Hank doesn't have a spiritual witness.

You do know that this is a parody of Christian missionaries who go door to door trying to get others to believe in their god? You are basically asking me to believe in something which can't be proven to exist in any reasonable way. You want me to kiss Hank's ass for some fictitious reward or get some imaginary punishment.

Not necessarily true, but necessarily impossible to prove false.

All religious beliefs are equal, equally delusional.

Therefore atheism is not founded upon logic. In fact the entire position of atheism makes no sense to me at all.

That maybe, but for one thing, atheism is not a cohesive belief system such as Christianity is. There are no common rites, rituals, or set dogma. What one atheist may believe or do is totally irrelevant to what another may believe or do, unlike with theists who have to answer to their god.

Not as easily as you might think. I say that because there would be believers that there was never any Elvis willing to claim anything no matter how strange: for example, that the guy shaking his pelvis in all the old Elvis videos was William Shakespeare.

Hardly. Good try though.

Which would be valid so long as it is taken in context. Similar to saying that all dreams are real, as they are all physical phenomena of the brain.

Dreams are nothing more than random neuron firing and the images are just the brain trying to handle it.

However you would, again, have to include God-like parameters in the toothfairy construct.

There are as I had pointed out.

It cannot be "imaginary" because it implies that the experience is invalid and an a posteriori truth must be correct to be sound.

Exactly. So, where is your proof?

That would require the "imaginary" to be of equal value as the "real".

You seem to think that it is since you're the one who has a "spirit witness". Is that like an imaginary friend that some children have?

Also you're flirting with circularity here.

Please, get real.

If you want to conclude that God is not an a posteriori truth in order to support the belief that there is no God, then you must conclude that all witnesses of God are either imaginary or false, and the only clear support for either assertion is the use of the nonexistance of God as an axiom.

Meaningless.

But all dreams are true, in their own context, because they happen. Relevancy of dream material to the waking world is a different matter.

Only to a person who can't tell the different between reality and a dream. When I dream I know that I'm dreaming.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 09-15-2002 3:33 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by gene90, posted 09-18-2002 7:19 PM nos482 has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 42 of 55 (17653)
09-18-2002 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by frank
09-10-2002 11:01 AM


I was getting confused with the church of England
I think ... sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 11:01 AM frank has not yet responded

    
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 55 (17721)
09-18-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nos482
09-15-2002 11:00 AM


Nos482,

Thanks for supplying the name. I could not remember but it did make an impression on me when I was researching scientology.

I would agree, becuase if there was one God, then they would all be alike in their beliefs [basic beliegs]. I believe today that Christains today just take what they like out of the bible, and call it Christainity. And the rest they dismiss as being inaccurate so they do not have to live their lives like the whole Bible tells them to. Inconsistency. Hmnmm.

I do agree with your post.

Thanks for posting.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 11:00 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 55 (17722)
09-18-2002 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by gene90
09-15-2002 3:43 PM


I believe if we define a Christain as the bible defines it, then no I have not met anyone 100% Christain.

If we define it loosely then no, even if we define it according to bible standards no.

Still looking for tha 100% Christain.

I may never find one.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by gene90, posted 09-15-2002 3:43 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 45 of 55 (17736)
09-18-2002 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nos482
09-15-2002 5:03 PM


Nos, when you're ready to put some thoughts forth beyond acerbic and fundamentally useless one-liners I'll give you a worthy response.

Until then, you're not "debating" anyone here, just trolling. Instead of arguing substantial points you're throwing out self-satisfying insults and intellectual junk-food. Now that I've seen you repeat your holy mantra a dozen times with no justification or basis for that bald assertion, that:

"All religious beliefs are equal, equally delusional."

I just don't see much justification to continue actually thinking when I reply to your posts, because I *know* you won't give me the same courtesy. Can you even justify your presence in half of the threads you participate in, other than to heckle legitimate participants? What sound arguments have you made since you got here? This is what, your third week?

I'm making a plea to invoke the Kent Hovind clause on ad-hominems. And besides I think that getting one of us a 48-hour suspension will probably contribute to the quality of this forum far more than attempting to have an actual debate with you, an attempt that has failed with surprising consistency since you arrived.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nos482, posted 09-15-2002 5:03 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 8:07 PM gene90 has 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