Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe
> >> in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because*
> >> religion is illogical that this is possible.
> > It is?
>
> Yes. In my experience, it is.
>
> Take, DeCartes, for example. His first step, "I think, therefore I am"
> is logical. His second (or so) step is "I know there is evil, hence
> there must be good" isn't. There could be many kinds of evil, and no
> good.
Descartes was also a philosopher, apart from mathematician. Philosophers have
this (annoying, IMHO) tendency to split everything in twain. However, if you
know the word "good", and observe only degrees of evil, what do you think a
philosopher living in such a world would call the less evil tier? His step is
illogical only if you define an absolute concept of good, which could
potentially not exist. But if you define relative concepts, I cannot imagine
how observing (relative) evil could not lead to defining (relative) good.

> If I have two different geometric objects with different numbers
> of sides, I know they can't both be triangles. But that doesn't mean if
> one isn't a triangle, the other one must be.
>
> > I can only talk about Christianism, but how silly of me to think that
> > about 1500 years of Europe's greatest minds would have ironed out the kinks so
> > much so that atheists can't think of anything really persuasive to make their
> > case.
>
> Not persuasive to someone already faithful, no. That's kind of the point
> of faith.
>
> Silly of you to think that after 1500 years of Europe's greatest minds,
> you couldn't come up with something to pursuade atheists, either, hmmm?
LOL.

>
> > Christianism is based on a dogma: God exists.
>
> Well, yeah. And logically, from one flawed premise, you can get all
> *kinds* of results that aren't isomorphic to reality in any way.
True. But there is just that little problem of proving that the premise is
flawed. ;-)

>
> I can base my navigation on a dogma that the earth is flat. Doesn't mean
> I'll get to where I'm going, even tho the greeks worked out all the
> rules for figuring that out were it so.
>
> > All the rest is logically gleaned from the Bible.
>
> In my experience, if logic conflicts with the statements in the Bible,
> the logic goes out the window.
That's because you talk to cracknuts. And some atheists are just as rabid and
nuts. Empirical evidence of, what?, 20+ years of BBS's, newsgroups and forums
has shown that both will just head-butt their respective ideas on one another's
head.
I'd like to have an example of a logical conflict, though.

>
> > Mathematicians use axioms and then derive conclusions
> > logically from there.
>
> Right.
>
> > According to you, then, maths is illogical and irrational
> > because it is necessarily based on (unproven) axioms.
>
> No, that isn't what makes religion illogical. That religion is based on
> unsupported axioms just makes its logical conclusions useless.
As opposed to mathematical axioms?

>  But even
> so, in my experience talking to religious people of all stripes,
> including (as I've described) people who have actually studied to be
> priests from a family of priests, religion is illogical. In the sense
> that if accepted premises lead to unacceptable conclusions, modus ponens
> must be at fault.
>
> >> I'm not sure it would be religion any more. When people got convinced
> >> that Thor wasn't real, it wasn't replaced with a different religion.
> > It wasn't? They went straight from Norse to atheist? Wow.
>
> By "thor" I meant the whole bit of "gods are responsible for lightning."
> When we found out what actually caused thunder, people didn't say "Oh,
> it wasn't *Thor*, it was *Loki*" or something.
>
> Out of curiousity, given the number of religions that have come and gone
> and are still popping into existence, why do you think yours is the
> right one?
Good question. I guess I was born in it. Miracles certainly play a part.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle also, since it seems to imply that Something
outside Big Bang could know position and angular momentum at the same time, but
anything inside can't. That would tie in quite surprisingly with beliefs of an
omnipotent time-lord that were already present in Judaism.
But most of all, I like the figure of Jesus. Definitely a very fine knower of
men.

>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
> > Now I'm curious. What ineluctable logic did you think up?
>
> Given it was 10 years ago, I don't remember the exact sequence of
> questions. But since I spent something like 40 minutes making sure I
> understood exactly what was going on, *I* am convinced.
Ah, OK. Pity.

>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
>> Have you ever seen an electron, or a single photon? How do you know they
>> exist?

> [Dumb]Because I'm told so?[/Dumb] :-D

Well, yeah, that's kind of dumb.

*I* am confident they exist because all kinds of things at the macro 
level (computers, lights, drugs, etc) are created based on theories they 
exist.

>>> Geometry is based on
>>> them, and space vectors too. Since there is no evidence of points' and lines'
>>> existence, I can claim with atheistic certainty, that geometry doesn't exist,
>>> and consequently neither ray-tracing.
>> Except they do exist.
> My point exactly.

Um, why are you claiming they don't exist.

>> They just don't exist "out there".
> Well, the Bible claims good and evil come from the heart.

I thought it came from a tree. Or from God. I'd be happy with religious 
people who believe good and evil comes from the heart and not from their 
God.

>> I'm not judging God.
> You said in an earlier post that God is evil. In the post I replied to, you said
> he was a SOB in the book of Job. That sounds like judging God to me.

Well, I suppose that could be interpreted that way, yes.

>> I'm judging the world around me, and I see that it
>> holds evil.
> So? That's men for you. (Huh, that came out weird :-O )

Ah, yes. The other religious standpoint. No matter what happens, the bad 
is your fault, because my God is good. The mayans believed that too, as 
they cut out peoples hearts. It was all for the best.

> I have a hard time believing that God isn't compatible with your beliefs.

Which one?  Yours?

> It's just an additional axiom. Unnecessary, apparently, but hardly colliding with
> other axioms. 

Um, yeah, actually. It conflicts with other axioms. Like, with *every* 
other axiom, pretty much.

Unless the god of which you speak does not intervene in any way with the 
progress of the universe, then yeah, that god conflicts with my other 
axioms.

Of course, *if* your only additional axiom is "God exists", and you're 
talking about *your* God (presumedly JHVH), then that one axiom is a 
whole bundle of axioms.

If you're talking about "God exists", *without* the "it's the god in the 
bible", or the "jesus was his son", or "he wants you to worship him", or 
"he created the universe", or "he cares what you do", or "he's the 
source of life", or "he's good" or "he cares whether you're good", then 
yes, it might not conflict, but it isn't useful to my life to consider 
that possibility either.

(Please, when reading the above, actually read what I'm actually saying, 
without reading into it your own assumptions and then arguing with me on 
that basis. Thanks!)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
>>> Christianism is based on a dogma: God exists.
>> Well, yeah. And logically, from one flawed premise, you can get all
>> *kinds* of results that aren't isomorphic to reality in any way.
> True. But there is just that little problem of proving that the premise is
> flawed. ;-)

No. That's up to you, because there's no evidence beyond a book rife 
with untruths. (You may call them allegories if you like.) I no more 
need to disprove the existence of God than to disprove the existence of 
unicorns and fairies and pots of gold at the base of the rainbow.

In any case, as I've said, not all else falls out just "God exists". 
Certainly *Christianity* doesn't fall out of "God exists" any more than 
the whole Norse pantheon falls out of "God exists."

>> I can base my navigation on a dogma that the earth is flat. Doesn't mean
>> I'll get to where I'm going, even tho the greeks worked out all the
>> rules for figuring that out were it so.
>>
>>> All the rest is logically gleaned from the Bible.
>> In my experience, if logic conflicts with the statements in the Bible,
>> the logic goes out the window.
> That's because you talk to cracknuts.

Cracknuts like priests from a family who has been priests for years? 
Yah, I suppose that would be cracknuts to some atheists.

> And some atheists are just as rabid and nuts. 

Mostly those who are either attacked by religious people or who can't 
deal with the idea that irrationality isn't always bad.

> I'd like to have an example of a logical conflict, though.

You'll wave it off. Different premises lead to different conclusions.

>> No, that isn't what makes religion illogical. That religion is based on
>> unsupported axioms just makes its logical conclusions useless.
> As opposed to mathematical axioms?

Some mathematical axioms lead to useless conclusions. Such as "Axiom 
One: the older speaker is always correct in matters of fact when in 
conflict with a younger speaker." You can build an entire world view on 
that. It won't match reality, but you can do it.

"Dogma: We're all living inside a hollow earth."  You can build a whole 
world-view on that.

> Good question. I guess I was born in it. Miracles certainly play a part.

Fair enough.

> Heisenberg uncertainty principle also, since it seems to imply that Something
> outside Big Bang could know position and angular momentum at the same time, but
> anything inside can't.

Maybe. But what does "outside" and "know" mean, then? FWIW, I have no 
problem with "there's something outside the universe that can't interact 
with anything inside the universe."  I have no argument with 
supernatural that *stays* supernatural. I just don't see any point in 
considering its existence.

> But most of all, I like the figure of Jesus. Definitely a very fine knower of
> men.

As were many religious leaders, as well as many non-religious leaders. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
> >> Yeah, its called chance. If you want to imply otherwise you first have
> >> to provide evidence that divine intervention was needed to make that
> >> happen, not human action.
>
> > Yeah, right. Now you're asking for God as testable hypothesis.
>
> No. Read closer: "Not human" != "God". There are multiple reasons this
> could happen: JHVJ, chance, aliens, Zeus. Patrick and you seem to agree
> it's not human. But your only other explanation is "God", which you need
> to support, as there are more things in heaven and earth than God and
> Human. If you'll forgive the irresistible phrasing. ;-)  If you assert
> that anything inexplicable and unlikely must be the work of God, you'll
> have to show how you came to that conclusion. You *don't* really have to
> show how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't humans guiding the
> process.
>
> The religious stance of "if we can't explain it, it must be God" isn't
> valid logic.
Hmm, right, but I think I read it correctly. I take Patrick's statement to mean
the "not" as:
you first have to provide evidence that divine intervention was needed to make
that happen, not (that) human action was needed (or whatever). The context
doesn't seem to be "not human" in the sense of negation of human.

>
> > Really? So language cannot prove itself, can it?
>
> That statement doesn't even make sense. Or, if it does, you'll have to
> clarify what you're asking.
>
> > Therefore let's burn dictionaries.
>
> Dictionaries don't prove anything.
Apart from the meaning of words, I would presume.

>
> > And math? Can it prove itself?
>
> No.
>
> On the other hand, if you postulated the existence of God as a
> mathematical premise, nobody would be arguing with you. Nobody bashes
> religion because Decartes' "evil deceiver" doesn't really exist.
>
> > So let's add math books to the pile.
>
> (clip snarky comment about how much religious people like burning books
> about science and math... ;-)
:-D

>
> > Considering Science is based on published papers, that consist of math
> > and (usually English) commentaries, I think you just killed Science.
>
> It's not that "language" can't prove itself. It's that a statement can't
> assert that it itself is true and logically therefore prove it is true.
>
> Neither science nor math attempts to prove themselves true "because we
> said so".
>
> OK, so Math says "assume X. Therefore Y is true." But everyone who knows
> anything about the topic understands that the second statement means "Y
> is true logically within a framework that assumes X is true and which
> assumes the logical rules we used for getting from X to Y is true." Math
> doesn't attempt to prove that Y is true in the real world because you
> assumed X is true in your logical system.
>
> Don't you know this stuff? Why are you trying to disprove math works, if
> you don't know how math works?
Of course I know this stuff. I'm going for a proof ab absurdo. I only note that
biblical studies use the same procedure. Given the premise(s) everything is
derived logically. Saying that you can't use (some parts of) the Bible to prove
(other parts of) the Bible is just as ungrounded as the above statements. Well,
excepting linguistics.

>
> >> And even if you prove times and places, which it invariably fails at,
> >> your argument that God was involved in it is based ***solely*** on the
> >> presupposition that because a lot of people believe in your God, this
> >> validates the idea that *he* was involved somehow. Its argument via
> >> popularity, not evidence.
>
> > Ever heard of peer review? It works on popularity among peers.
>
> No it doesn't. Have you ever published a paper in a peer-reviewed
> journal? Have you ever reviewed a peer-reviewed paper? I have maybe half
> a dozen publications, and reviewed dozens more. It has *nothing* to do
> with popularity. Indeed, people organizing peer reviews go *out of their
> way* to make sure the people doing the reviews don't know *who* they are
> reviewing.
Let's see: peer review consists of two words. You claim to have reviewed papers.
Did you ever receive more than a pat on the back and a thank you, or even that?
Because, I, sure as heck, haven't. In another context that would be called
slavery. And slaves are peer only to other slaves. I don't know about how it
works in your parts, but hereabout universities are vaguely aristocratic. The
lamest lecturer's opinion is always worth a million times better than an
alumnus. And let's not even talk about the big whigs.
Now for review, I am told that in times past, professors would referee some
papers. I have no problem calling that partial peer review. But the way it
works now, at least here, is just for weeding out the patently unpublishable
work and getting suggestions.
However I maintain that refereeing is not the whole peer review process. When an
important paper is published, each and everybody who is somebody in that field
will form an informed opinion, and the majority will get its way. You don't
want to call it peer review, despite it being quite literally what happens?
Fine, I don't know how else to call it, though.
Patrick used "popularity" to describe religions' diffusion, and I used it in the
same sense too.

>
> Another one of those possibly-true logical systems (popularity -> truth)
> that turns out not to work scientifically. That's why it's called
> "Doctor of Philosophy", you see. Think about it.
See above.

>
> That you don't know this tells me you're talking out your butt when it
> comes to science,
Ah, the turn of phrase, the sheer genius oozing out of the elegance of the
beatuous statement! I am awed unto silence. Nay, what says I, my ideas and I
fade into Oblivion.

> and that you understand it as little as you think
> atheists understand your religion.
I do not claim to know how atheists understand my religion. Also in a recent
post you quipped that nemesis couldn't know what you think. Looks like you
found the trick to telepathy on your own.

>
> > Man, if you're
> > trying to take science out of the picture you're doing a good job. <_<
>
> Only to those who are ignorant of science, apparently.
>
> And it's *still* the case that lack of science doesn't prove your God is
> right.
I am not attacking Science. Nor am I out to making such nonsense as disproving
it. Science is IMO the greatest invention humanity ever made.

>
> > I seriously doubt that Buddhism is second. Islam allows four wives, BTW. Kind of
> > an unfair advantage. ;-)
>
> http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
>
> A trivial google search turns up at least some information. Note that
> atheism is third.
>
> On the other hand,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Demographics
> gives a completely different order to the list, off by orders of
> magnitude, so obviously this isn't easily measurable.
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
>> Don't you know this stuff? Why are you trying to disprove math works, if
>> you don't know how math works?
> Of course I know this stuff. I'm going for a proof ab absurdo.

You missed. "Science is just like religion, therefore..." doesn't work.

> I only note that
> biblical studies use the same procedure. Given the premise(s) everything is
> derived logically.

I'll disagree. Either that, or the premises you have to assume are so 
broad and otherwise unsupported that they're contrary to evidence.

> Saying that you can't use (some parts of) the Bible to prove
> (other parts of) the Bible is just as ungrounded as the above statements.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, if you assume that *this* part of the 
Bible is true, then *that* part logically follows, sure.

That's not very useful, tho. Why should I assume those premises actually 
match reality? Why shouldn't I assume the Mayan premises are just as valid?

> Let's see: peer review consists of two words. You claim to have reviewed papers.
> Did you ever receive more than a pat on the back and a thank you, or even that?

Yeah. I received a PhD. Some free trips to Spain, too, actually.

> Because, I, sure as heck, haven't. In another context that would be called
> slavery. And slaves are peer only to other slaves.

Playing with linguistics is beneath the level that this conversation has 
been kept at. "Because you don't get paid to do peer reviews, they're 
not valuable."

> However I maintain that refereeing is not the whole peer review process. When an
> important paper is published, each and everybody who is somebody in that field
> will form an informed opinion, and the majority will get its way. You don't
> want to call it peer review, despite it being quite literally what happens?

Yes. I'm not following, tho. Note that in science, "peer review" isn't 
just peers looking at your paper and deciding if they like it. It's 
peers *reproducing your experiments* and deciding if they get the same 
answers.

It isn't popularity. You could be the most popular person out there, and 
your experiments could be wrong.

>> Another one of those possibly-true logical systems (popularity -> truth)
>> that turns out not to work scientifically. That's why it's called
>> "Doctor of Philosophy", you see. Think about it.
> See above.

OK, so you don't understand the process.

>> And it's *still* the case that lack of science doesn't prove your God is
>> right.
> I am not attacking Science. Nor am I out to making such nonsense as disproving
> it. Science is IMO the greatest invention humanity ever made.

Then why are you trying to equate the popularity of a religion with peer 
reviewed science?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> The religious stance of "if we can't explain it, it must be God" isn't 
> valid logic.

It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my book) 
to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call 'God'" 
and refining that when you encounter things for which you discover an 
explanation.  However, there will always be a level above the 
explainable that needs 'something else' to describe it.  Is it 
scientific?  No.  Does it need to be?  I personally don't think so.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my book) 
> to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call 'God'" 

Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?  It seems 
kind of odd to define "God" as "that which I don't understand." I mean, 
if you're going to start giving attributes to God, such as omnipotence, 
benevolence, etc, then you *do* think you understand something about God.

If you're just going to say "when I say flying saucer, I *mean* UFO", 
then sure. But you've just eliminated one of those two words.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't just call it "unexplainable".

> However, there will always be a level above the 
> explainable that needs 'something else' to describe it.  

Including God.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my book) 
> to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call 'God'" 
> and refining that when you encounter things for which you discover an 
> explanation. 

Oh, and this also implies that if you actually *did* know everything, 
you'd realize God doesn't exist. ;-) You might want to rethink that one.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You know, number 11, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior? Didn't that
> get slipped in there a bit back?

Jesus is God in flesh.  Rule number 1.

> > I can't steal an HDTV and PS3 from store by God's law.
>
> Of course you can.
>
> >  Neither can Jim, by men's law.
>
> He can too.

yes, we can.  That's free will.  Of course, we know there are consequences for
it by the laws of men and God.  Going to jail and then to Hell.  and if you
happen to be brazilian it's all the same...

Complete free will is an illusion.  You pay for your actions no matter what.

Post a reply to this message