How can god not exist?

Blackguard...

Ring any bells?

HoHo

What is the best variation of the sign
'Faulty Towers' as show at beginning of show...
[it changes every episode]

'Flowery twats'

'watery fowls' is good...but twats are better [more tounge lashing here]

Manuel is of course..from barcelona....[where else]

Oh yes...umm ..is see ..umm ,is see... ohhh . yes i see...uommh yes...
MMMM is see...
[short description of sybil]

And as for blackadder...[3]
It is DEEP
"Kitcherers plan to win WW1.
Everybody dies but Kitchener"

Now THAT is true geopolitics.

Occam

 

Hammer

Yes they do

They mean something to you
The problem with humanity is that individuals think THEIR 'something'
Is the only thing....
They discount the somethings of others...

Science does this by a method..It works...They take MANY somethings.
Many perspectives..and correlates them. Against eachother and the
phenomena of reality.
That somehing..gives us planes and PC's

Everyone elses something is just something we talk about.
If we talk well and accurately...
It may become science...
Untill then it can be nothing but opinion

This does not mean i has no worth..
it means WE cannot use the understanding.
You believe a thing...occam does not.
WE cannot agree on it. And untill we do..
It is indeterminate.

99.5% of all human belief is indeterminate...
It stands alone as personal belief..without verification outside the person.
Not one iota of it can be called fact..
Untill it can. [be verified by others outside the person..and by reality]

But what if you walk alone an t night..And a rift opens in reality
God looks at you..speaks to you..then the rift closes...
You cannot show the evidence..it is gone..but you saw it
It was real.
The answer science has for you is ..tough
And that is where science falls down.


Occam

 

First, I think we're finally starting to agree on something. And do you know why I think that is? Because we've stopped talking about truth and have started talking about meaning. And the nice thing about meaning is that there can be no wrong interpretation of anything. So why are we talking then if neither one of us can prove the other wrong? To share contexts, to open up discourse, to bare our souls. And that's what philosophy's really about, isn't it?

It's an unfortunate side-effect of the scientific mind-set we've all been brought up around.

Yeah, but science looks for truth. That's its job, and it's been doing a pretty good job at that. But science is not the right tool for finding meaning, and it is not the right tool to determine morality.

No matter how well we talk about philosophy, it will never become science. If philosophy could become science, then I'm sure that Kant or Hegel would have talked their philosophies into being so. I can think of a few exceptions though: the atomists (they were no quantum physicists, but they had the basic idea right), the scientific method, which originally fell into the realm of philosophy, and bits and pieces of Aristotle, who knew a lot about biology. But generally, philosophy does not become science.

But is it meaningful? Can something be meaningful without necessarily being true?

What if it wasn't real, but seeing that hallucination inspires me to give all my worldly posessions to the poor and become a monk, and then a scientist came up to me and proved beyond any doubt that my vision was not real? Would science have succeeded or failed there?

 

The Hammer speaks

Excellent post...
thank you for your considered reply.


"First, I think we're finally starting to agree on something. And do you know why I think that is? Because we've stopped talking about truth and have started talking about meaning. And the nice thing about meaning is that there can be no wrong interpretation of anything. So why are we talking then if neither one of us can prove the other wrong? To share contexts, to open up discourse, to bare our souls. And that's what philosophy's really about, isn't it? "

Exactly

"It's an unfortunate side-effect of the scientific mind-set we've all been brought up around."
The scientific mind set is rational analysis...

Occam trust it ...If you do not..then are you rational.?
Reason is the process of MIND.
If you cannot believe the method of MIND...
You believe nothing.
MIND...Is the only method we have.

Yeah, but science looks for truth. That's its job, and it's been doing a pretty good job at that. But science is not the right tool for finding meaning, and it is not the right tool to determine morality.

Science is a TOOL
We use it.
The result is PC processors that process a million instructions per second.
Occam never said science had anything to do with morality.
And you know it.


No matter how well we talk about philosophy, it will never become science. If philosophy could become science, then I'm sure that Kant or Hegel would have talked their philosophies into being so. I can think of a few exceptions though: the atomists (they were no quantum physicists, but they had the basic idea right), the scientific method, which originally fell into the realm of philosophy, and bits and pieces of Aristotle, who knew a lot about biology. But generally, philosophy does not become science.

Really?
Philosophy IS science...
You call philosophy the wild imaginings of man...Do you not??
Then philosophy is the harbinger of nuclear fission
And fusion
Of satellites..
Of the NET
Of computers...
Of genetic manipulation

ALL were described in human fiction before they were made real by method..


But is it meaningful? Can something be meaningful without necessarily being true?

yes
The bible is such a thing.


What if it wasn't real, but seeing that hallucination inspires me to give all my worldly posessions to the poor and become a monk, and then a scientist came up to me and proved beyond any doubt that my vision was not real? Would science have succeeded or failed there?[/QUOTE]
Science does not come to your door and tell YOU
ANYTHING.
Religion does.

Science is a thing you adopt. It is NOT PROACTIVE...
It IS a method
NOT a philosophy

Occam

 

That's not really what I was talking about. I was thinking of the scientific mind-set as prioritizing truth above all else.

How, exactly, do you define reason? Is it induction or deduction, a priori or a posteriori? So far you've told me that reason is the only way to gain knowledge, but you have not yet told me what reason is.

Yes you did. You said that reason can be the foundation of morality. Now, I know that reason and science are two different things, but you seem to think that they are very closely related, at least I've assumed as much since you use them almost interchangably. So, can science be a foundation for morality? Can reason?

It's definately not. For something to be a science, it has to use the scientific method.

We're in a lot of trouble if the bomb, an effective way of distribuing pornography, and the perversion of nature are the highest manifestations of man's creative will. But you are right that philosophy is about creativity and personnal expression, and that's what makes it an art, not a science.

You've been throwing around the words reason, science, and method a lot. So what, exactly is this method, and don't give me something cryptic like it's "the way of the mind" or something. I need a better explaination. But we're moving away from meaning again and looking for truth. This is a problem because I'm not trying to prove that God exists, only that God is meaningful.

Okay. So we've determined that meaning has nothing to do with truth value, we can agree on that. So here, once again, is the $64 question: Of what value is truth if it doesn't make you a better person? Or, does knowing the truth make you a better person?

Obviously. But science is a method that, if practiced, will yield the same results each time an experiment is performed, at least it's supposed to when done right.

Come on. How does religion come to the door and tell me things? Representatives of religious denominations do, but they're not religion. So how is religion any less of a method than science? There are several methods to approaching theology such as the apothetic, process, empirical, etc.

What do you mean by 'proactive'?

You just said that philosophy is science in this post.

 

"Okay. So we've determined that meaning has nothing to do with truth value, we can agree on that. So here, once again, is the $64 question: Of what value is truth if it doesn't make you a better person? Or, does knowing the truth make you a better person?"


Dude, if you can't be a better person without promise of an afterlife or fear of 'burning' in 'the pits of oblivion', you're an asshole. People like that don't deserve to go wherever they think they're going.

 

Well, actually, I would disagree with HammerSpeaks. To use science is certainly to practice philosophy, as science itself presupposes certain philosophical ideas - e.g. that man is competent to assess knowledge claims, that sensory experience is a valid method to gaining information, that there is an objective reality that we are contained in, etc.

I wouldn't really say that science IS philosophy, in the sense that the two are synonymous, but I would rather say that to advocate and use science is to already presuppose certain philosophical positions as being valid, and to employ such philosophical ideas when using the scientific method.

Reason can be properly defined by using Plantinga's definition of what a rational person is. To be rational is to:

(1) Act in accord with your believings
(2) Have no believings which violate any epistemic rules.

Reason itself, in this context, can be said to be the process of rational identification of sound ideas. The epistemic rules that one need pay mind when using such rational identification of such sound ideas are the rules of logic - which brings us through the process of discarding incoherent statements. Pretty basic stuff, wouldn't you say? I think this is sufficient enough.

And I would certainly agree with WhisperingWoods that truth is far more beneficial and is to be far more desired than non-truth.

- Laz

 

I think the bible was some book someone made up one day. im not going to argue to much but i know a guy who was like..wanna make up a religion? thats how it all started. its just a fairy tale people choose to belieave to give them false hope. i would rather belieave something that i can see and not just read that some guy can part water and belieave that..

 

lol - maybe the post-modernist all-embracing relativist nonsense that is gaining prevalence in modern day - but if you look at the term itself and the history of philosophy, no. The term itself simply means love of wisdom, famously coined by Socrates, if I remember correctly. And the term wisdom is defined as great understanding. From the Pre-Socratic era and forward, philosophers have been considered those who contemplate various ideas in an attempt to understand the world around them. This is why I would certainly say that science cannot escape being categorized in as having it's own philosophical presuppositions, as I discussed in my prior thread.

So I wouldn't say philosophy is about emotionalism, baring our souls, etc. - it's the attempt to understand our world - to gain both the truth *and* the meaning, the latter usually dictated by the former.

- Laz

 

we are all going to die..we are just going to choose diffrent paths getting there. Live and Let Live.

 

This shows you don't have much understanding about the Bible and it's make-up. There was no single individual that wrote the Bible - the Bible has many authors. There was not a single era in which the Bible was written - it was written over many centuries. There was no precise set of books that were considered sacred from the beginning - those books which were to be considered authoritative were decided by various councils throughout the first few centuries C.E. This also shows that you haven't read your Bible much - because much of it deals with history, even though it isn't to be considered an historical text. Further, in many versions you'll find an introduction that explains the history, discusses authorship, and the purposes of the individual books themselves.

Study up.

- Laz

 

What is the best variation of the sign
'Faulty Towers' as show at beginning of show...
[it changes every episode]

'Flowery twats'

'watery fowls' is good...but twats are better [more tounge lashing here]

Manuel is of course..from barcelona....[where else]

I enjoy that show so much, and am sure I have seen every episode at least twice, but having not had a tv for 7 years, my memory of the signs is dimming.
Wasn't one, " fatty owls", that is all I can recall.

I have a couple of favorite episodes, such as the guest dying one, and the Americans who request a Waldorf salad, the 'don't mention the war' one. Come to think of it, they are all masterpieces.
I always wanted to get a car alarm programmed to play Sybil shouting, "Basil, Basil, Basil, .....!"

The tale of the US studios attempt to do a remake is hilarious too, with moves such as writing Basil out of the cast!

lol

It is one of the funniest series ever made, in my view.

 

Well history presupposes causality. Does that make history philosophy? Every discipline presupposes some kind of philosophical belief. But philosophy is the only discipline to question those presuppositions.

WhisperingWoods completely missed my point, and I'm pretty sure is an idiot. But I'll bite. What if it was the truth that all Chinese people should be murdered? Would the truth be more desirable then?

I know the etymology of 'philosophy.' But surely you agree that semantics and the philosophy of language are important areas of study in philosophy.

The latter can't dictate the former because something doesn't have to be true to be meaningful. I actually think that a rigid division can be made between the two. And you don't think that philosophy is about 'baring your soul' because you see philosophy as a science. I see it as an art, in which baring one's soul is fundamental.

 

TheHammerSpeaks
That's not really what I was talking about. I was thinking of the scientific mind-set as prioritizing truth above all else.


And how does science do so.. By method..rational method

How, exactly, do you define reason? Is it induction or deduction, a priori or a posteriori? So far you've told me that reason is the only way to gain knowledge, but you have not yet told me what reason is.

Cut the latin..we speak to many..most have no understandind of apriori
or other such concepts...lets not alienate our thinking to those that may be interested in it...
Occam read a whole bunch of books by kant and others who spoke in
latin... Whos logic was a miasma of confusion. Who lost the POINT OF IT ALL,,in detail.
They were fools.
Shopenhaur did a better job by speaking in plain ideas and words...
Even if he was a mysognist bastard.
As did Nietsche...

Reason is method of thought.
We all have it..Many use it more than others
It is based in the method of reality..
Which seems the functional method..
It is based in laws that are not variable.
Those laws are logical... And process according to its own laws...
Moons orbit planets...why ,, because of logical rational method.
Reason is a method based in logic.
As is reality...
Occam will believe such a method..and adopt it himself for one reson only

IT WORKS

Yes you did. You said that reason can be the foundation of morality. Now, I know that reason and science are two different things, but you seem to think that they are very closely related, at least I've assumed as much since you use them almost interchangably. So, can science be a foundation for morality? Can reason?

Yes occam did..he screwed up on that one...
Reason can be a foundation of morality
And to occam .. it is.
Occams morality is based in reason...
Not a book..

he was incorrect in his earlier statement.


It's definately not. For something to be a science, it has to use the scientific method.

Ocams philosophy IS the scientific method. with varaitions.
How do you come to a philosophical conclusion?
Through a method...?
Or through a desire to believe?
The only method of thought in human though that works.
Is rational method.
Science.
[that is, NO PREDJUDICE]

Occam suggests that ALL human understanding is a product of rational method...
Buddha was a rational man..
As was christ.
As were a hundred great human thinkers.

We're in a lot of trouble if the bomb, an effective way of distribuing pornography, and the perversion of nature are the highest manifestations of man's creative will. But you are right that philosophy is about creativity and personnal expression, and that's what makes it an art, not a science.

Science IS art..It is our art to understanding..
Art is our description of reality.
Science is an accurate art..
ART is a descriptive perspective...

All is description..All is valuable.

You've been throwing around the words reason, science, and method a lot. So what, exactly is this method, and don't give me something cryptic like it's "the way of the mind" or something. I need a better explaination. But we're moving away from meaning again and looking for truth. This is a problem because I'm not trying to prove that God exists, only that God is meaningful.

Sorry

Okay. So we've determined that meaning has nothing to do with truth value, we can agree on that. So here, once again, is the $64 question: Of what value is truth if it doesn't make you a better person? Or, does knowing the truth make you a better person?

Believing you are doing the best for youself , and humanity
Based on you wisdom and understanding...
Based on the feedback from you actions...
That some have been aided in their path..and in their life..
By yopur actions...
Is all we can hope for...

Obviously. But science is a method that, if practiced, will yield the same results each time an experiment is performed, at least it's supposed to when done right.

And?

Come on. How does religion come to the door and tell me things? Representatives of religious denominations do, but they're not religion. So how is religion any less of a method than science? There are several methods to approaching theology such as the apothetic, process, empirical, etc.

HOW are they NOT RELIGION?
They say they speak for god
And keep saying it over and over...AND OVER AND OVER
Occam replies..he is an agnostic...
And that their beliefs are BELIEFS...NOT FACT.
RELIGION IS...the old ladies that show up at occams door...
He gives them a cup of tea...
And a nice conversation about jesus...

But he cuts them NO SLACK...about the validity of their belief.
He owes no-one ,, anything but his belief. Based in real phenomena.

Religion is also fundamentalist....Bombs and such
These people are NOT religion...
They are psychotic...
People who kill for religion...
A religion that says killing is wrong...
USE religion
They are NOT religious.

They are shitheads.
Controllers. Egoheads. manipulators,,,WEAK PEOPLE.
With weak minds.
Evil
For evil is ...weakness. It cannot exist without good humans to inflict it on.
Good..being resonable peolpe. Who hope, love and THINK.
Good is the norm. Reason. Evil is the antithesis of such.
Destruction of good for personal agenda.

What do you mean by 'proactive'?

Occam does not come to your door and sell you a way of life.
Religion does.
Proactive

You just said that philosophy is science in this post.

maybe..occam is saying that any philosophy that is accurate.
Uses a method
And the only method we know that works
Is rational method based in logic.
Science.

What other method is there????????????????????????????????????????????
Show occam a method of thought.
That is not based in reason.
That can manipulate reality.
In a way all humans can pecieve?

Occam sees none

Occam

 

No, it does so completely arbitrarily. There is no good reason to rank truth above living a good life, or finding meaning in life. If I'm wrong, then what is the reason for it?

Let's not overestimate the importance of this conversation. Chances are neither one of us is going to convince anyone of anything. And our audience here is miniscule at best. So why don't we just say what's on our minds?

Obviously you'd think so because Kant questioned science's ability to reach objective truth. But nevertheless, Kant was one of the greatest philosophical systematizers ever. His philosophy was far from fool-proof, but his categories are useful tools for finding out exactly what reason is.

I find Nietzsche to be very cryptic, but to each his own. I would not, however, call Nietzsche a champion of reason since he was decidedly irrational.

So reason is a priori then. Good. We agree. But the problem with unvarifiability is the problem of induction. How do you solve this problem?

So how is it that faith doesn't work?

So then show me a deduction that proves an ethical truth.

There are several methods that one can use to come to a philosophical conclusion. All are based, to a certain extent, on reason. You've got phenomenology, dialectic, and the list goes on. So what gives the scientific method such a priviledged position, and how is it that it is the appropriate method for dealing with ever question that could ever be asked?

But art is necessarily subjective because it's all about creativity. There are no rules to art, or at least very few. The scientific method is the only way to do science, and science tries to discover objective truths. Therefore, it can't be subjective, there is no room for creativity, and it is not an art.

Don't be sorry, just give me an answer. The scientific method is based on experience, and the goal of which is to create universal laws which govern the universe. That is not 'reason,' strictly speaking.

Okay, Occam. But you're the one saying that belief doesn't matter when it stands next to objective truth. What if it was objectivelly true that you should kill six million people. Hitler thought that to be the case. So I'll ask again, how does knowing the truth make you a better person?

So science does not account for individual choice or human creativity. I'd say that's a pretty big down-side.

Because 'religion' is an abstract concept which can not be personified in any one or group of individuals.

I must be pretty damn evil then.

Okay. Much more clear now.


You just said that philosophy is science in this post.

How do thinks like faith, love, and responsibility not work, Occam? These are probably the least scientific concepts I can think of, but I think they work a lot better than a discipline which brushes these things off as chemical reactions which have no bearing on reality.

Well first of all, science can't even show us things that everyone can perceive. Much of it is just theoretical. And second, all methods are based on reason to a certain degree because the deductions all follow one another. But let's take faith and everything that comes with it, something not based on reason. It may be a bit of a stretch to call faith a method, but I think we have a pretty loose definition of 'method' here anyway.

 

Heh - well, heard of Philosophy of History, much? Note also how Newall supports exactly what I said - almost word for word - about while such an issue (in this case history - in the other case we priorly discussed, science) is not to be used as a synonymous term with "philosophy" it nonetheless cannot be said to be seperate from philosophy or be said to escape philosophical influences (which is obvious - and I think you'd agree).

As for whether or not we should kill the Chinese - the answer is absolutely. Even in your own sentence structure you've already admitted it. You said if we "find out the truth that we *should* kill all Chinese people" - well, if we should, if by a certain discovery we realize that we are morally obligated to kill all Chinese people, then obviously we are morally obligated to kill all Chinese people - and to have had no discovery of the truth would have meant an avoidance of this moral obligation, which by definition is a bad thing.

As for any specific example of what such a situation could be where we would be morally obligated to kill all Chinese people - I do not know. But that's not the issue, of course, but rather whether or not the truth is more desirable itself. And it is - even in this extreme case we see it is.

Now I would disagree that the latter (meaning, etc.) is not generally dictated by the former (knowledge, truth, etc.) in philosophical systems. Meaning can only derive and be made sensible from the idea that we already know what we're talking about - or that we understand a concept in some such way that it provides meaning. Meaning cannot be obtained without some sort of understanding about a subject or subject set. Whatever we would be trying to derive meaning from would be meaningless or emotionless drivel, as it would make no sense to us at all.

My position is not that something has to be true to be meaningful, but rather than we have to understand or have a particular knowledge about that thing in order to derive meaning from it. I think this is also obvious, and is something you'll agree with. Established philosophical systems set up their epistemological and metaphysical theories, and then derive emotional, spiritual, and/or linguistic meaning from those theories. One famous example is Logical Positivism. We only understand the empirical, and thus anything that is said to be factually meaningful sans empirical verification is simply to speak meaningless drivel, that has no significance or bearing on the individual him or herself.

- Laz

 

Hammer

Real tired tonight..will answer tomorrow
Great post..

Occam

 

why study something i will have no use for in life?

 

I suppose I'd agree. But then every discipline would be inseparable from philosophy because the goal of any subject is attain knowledge (in the loosest sense of the word imaginable) and epistemology is within realm of (traditional) philosophy. So if science is philosophy, then so is sociology, psychology, and even atrology.

You're reasoning is, of course, fool proof. But I think that the problem lies with reason itself, and not with the application of reason. If it is true that all Chinese people should be killed, then it is true that we should all go out and kill Chinese people. But do we have an obligation to do so? That question is a little more difficult to answer because do I really have an such alliegence to reason that reason can dictate my actions. This seems to me to nullify free will. It makes it seem as if I have little choice in the matter and that to not kill Chinese people would be a sin against reason. But I can't sin against reason because reason isn't conscious. Reason could care less if I killed or did not kill Chinese people. What I think it really comes down to is a choice, either to let reason determine my moral actions, or to choose them for myself. Of course, a degree of choice is always involved. Even if you let reason determine your actions, you have still chosen to let reason determine your actions. If God came down from heaven and told me to kill all Chinese people, then I would probably do so. However, God and reason are two very different things. For me, God is a concrete existent, which means God has all the complexity of a human being. Reason is an abstract concept and so is no more deep than the number two. It really comes down to choosing your alliegences, I suppose. And it's a decision that we must make very wisely. Human beings are in a very unique position to choose our masters, and that is why I disagree that reason is always the best master, at least in the case of ethical choices.

Is this the lingering influence of logical positivism? I think so. And logical positivism was undeniably disproven. Why? Because it's premises are trivial: "A statement is meaningful iff it is either analytically true, or potentially verifiable." There's far more to meaning than this.

I do. But then the question really becomes, "How can one have particular knowledge of a thing?" "Knowledge" is the key word, I suppose. And I think that we'll have very different definitions of "knowledge." For me, it is very difficult to distinguish between knowledge and belief, and belief itself is still a kind of knowledge. In some cases, belief is even more important than knowledge.

 

How can scienctists (who study the workings of the physical universe) prove or disprove anything about God who works outside of the physical universe? Science can describe the mechanical nature of the universe, but if God decides to make an alteration in the mechanical nature of reality (say, turn the great lakes into gasoline), scientists will have no explanation for it.

I have a cool idea to do if God does it.... the gun from "The Goonies".