Evolution, science, faith- lightening rod

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution, science, faith- lightening rod - II

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 30, 2007 08:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9163
PAGE 4 of 4

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
That segway was to show that lack of evidence doesn't prove that something doesnt exist, which was your original argument.
It was? Where did I say THAT??? I must have been drunk! Where, where, where....?

No you're right you didn't. You jumped in to clarify a post of Rue's and things became sidetracked. I apologise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah. you must be confused again.

Sorry- couldn't resist.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:49 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the argument was that though you may not be able to perceive a thing directly, if it's real it will have an observable effect. Just trying to keep track of the loose ends.

Yep and that's the idea I disagree with since not observing the effect (or observing it but not understanding it) does not nescessarily mean that a real object doesnt exist. Needs repeating that an absence of evidence is not nescessarily evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:53 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah. you must be confused again.

Sorry- couldn't resist.

You should work on that impluse control problem kid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But you agree it does work the other way around - if something doesn't exist then it has no effect.

Anyway - I'm about to head home. I hope they'll be some more posts when I get back on the board.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 6:21 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you agree it does work the other way around - if something doesn't exist then it has no effect.

Anyway - I'm about to head home. I hope they'll be some more posts when I get back on the board.

Yes, I would also agree that if someone is proposing that something exists, the onus is on them to prove it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 4:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You should work on that impluse control problem kid.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow, nobody's called me a "kid" in.... decades. Thanks!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 4:25 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Causal

I should have spent more words on my post. By showing (I hope) that even my own existence is beyond proof to myself (despite "je pense, donc je suis"), I was hoping to indicate that in order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

The other thing I really wanted to get across is that things that we intuitively think are true and have inherent meaning ("one") may be entirely derived from our physical nature and brain function.

Anyway, I have to go so I hope we'll continue later.

I suppose our last few posts are proof that there's life after snarky!

Actually, I'm not sure that I can agree that one can't prove one's own exist. Because something is having the mental event, "I can't prove my own existence." The cogito (which is how philosophers refer to your "je pense, donc je suis") is true everytime it is thought in virtue of the fact that something is thinking it. To deny that that's the case is to fly in the face not only of ancient and modern philosophical concensus, but also common sense (as it seems to be the case that no one really doubts their own existence). Hell, you might be able to make a convincing argument for solipsism, but I'd like to know why you deny the cogito and not just that you deny it.

Also, the idea that there are things that we "inuitively think" that are therefore true is an argument that can cut both ways. Just as you claim that you "inuitively think" that only physical things exist, I could claim that I intuitively think that God exists. So how could we establish which of our intuitively thought inherent truths is the one that corresponds with reality? Or do you deny not just the cogito but the Law of Contradiction, and the Correspondence Theory of truth, as well?

Furthermore, what is it about "intuitive thought" that guarantees truth? And how would you account for the fact that thousands of years ago, nearly every human being on the planet "intuitively thought" that there were gods? How would you account for the vast, vast differences in moral opinions, in light of your view that intuitive thinking leads to inherent truth? Wouldn't both sides of the abortion debate claim that their view is the result of "intuitive thinking"?

In short, in virtue of what does intuitive thinking lead to indisputable truth, and how would you defend this claim in light of vast differences of opinion around the world?

Also, I wanted to specifically comment on this:

Quote:
In order to get anywhere, one must make certain assumptions. I just made mine up front.

Well, I guess that's the real source of irritation for me. I appreciate the fact that you made your assumptions up front. The trouble is that I don't agree that your assumptions are true, and I want to dispute the truth of those assumptions. But I'm not sure you want to do that, because mostly what I've seen you doing in order to defend your assumptions is to restate those assumptions in other terms or to assert certain other assumptions. Case in point: you seem to take it as axiomatic that only pysical things exist. I don't think that's the case, so I want to dispute that point. But you didn't make an argument to the effect that only physical things exist, you restate the case and offered the "anything real exists, etc" tautology. I'm more than happy to dispute about the epistemic value of intuitive thinking. But that's going to require us both to make arguments for our respective cases.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted to add: is it not the case that you intuitively think that you exist? And if so, doesn't that, according to your epistemology, mean that it is "inherently true"? And if, according to your epistemology, it is inherently true that you exist (in virtue of the fact that you "intuitively think" that you do) doesn't this contradict your epistemological belief that there's no way to prove that you exist?

Take the following argument, based on your epistemology:
1) Intuitive thinking is sufficient for something's being inherently true
2) Causal intuitively thinks that he exists
3) Therefore, Causal's existence is inherently true.

Doesn't that prove that I exist? And if so, it is apparently not the case that one cannot prove one's own existence. If your epistemology is correct, then there is a way to prove one's own existence: one must merely intuitively think it. And if that's the case, then you must eject either the epistemic value of intuitive thinking, or the assertion that one cannot prove one's own existence.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"if one person discloses their assumption, and the other disagrees, debate can still take place, but only if both are open to the idea that their beliefs stand in need of justification."

I tried to do that - the justification - but perhaps what I need is still more words.

I'm sure you remember some of your dreams from when you sleep. How can you logically prove they aren't real ? And when you wake up, how can you prove that the person in your dreams is not remembering your waking life as if it was a dream ? So to start, I can't prove what's real. I can't even prove which one of me is real, the dream one or the other one. And I can even imagine me as a character in someone else's dream, thinking I am real.

When it gets right down to it, you can't prove anything is real, not even yourself.

So, I start out by saying I assume the world is real and I exist in it. If you don't start there, you can't get anwyhere else.

Is this a good starting point for you ?

See my post above.

Also, if you genuinely believe that nothing at all can be proven (and in spite of your protestations, I don't believe that you do) then what's the point of arguing anything? If you don't feel that you can even prove your own existence (which is absurd, for what entity is having the mental event, "I can't prove my own existence"?) then what's the point of arguing so heatedly for your positions? If you can't even prove that you exist then surely you're not going to be able to prove anything so complicated as material reductionism, let alone a more complicated doctrine. For you claim that you cannot prove that you are not a character in someone else's dream. To which I reply that if that is the case, then it may be possible that you are merely a character in God's mind. And if you can't prove that that's not the case, then I have every bit as strong an argument for God as you have against God--because if we can't even prove something so elementary as our own existence, than any possibility has an equal justification--that is, its mere possibility. If nothing can be proven, then there's no way for you to prove that there's no God--or anything else for that matter. In which case, why do you bother to argue about anything at all?

Or is it the case, as I argue above, that your epistemology contains a contradiction that must be resolved?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:06 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so what is right and wrong? how do you decide? i want to know.. absent 'absolute truths', what are you left with?

Personally I think we can establish a fairly decent code of ethics based off of science. It would certainly be imperfect but then so is the moral code of the Bible so it would likely end up being a lateral move.

Quote:
ok, we both understand that our social and emotional characteristics come from our DNA, which was hard wired that way.. so did the 'code' write itself?

*sigh* You keep saying things like this. I can't sit here and will my DNA to change, I do not choose to alter my genes. In the unlikely event that I reproduce my genes will combine with the genes of my mate, however the transcription will not be perfect and a small amount of random errors will occur, if they are beneficial then they will be selected for, if they are detrimental they will be selected against. Over time this selection will result in code being assembled that pushes for certain behaviors and traits that are beneficial. Or at least that's the way it would work if most of the western world didn't restrict themselves to two kids which sort of stalls evolution a bit. At no point does anyone sit down concentrate real hard and suddenly have new genes pop into place.

Quote:
im not sure you can accurately explain every aspect of human nature, simply by making inferences of natural selection processes and environmental factors.

Sure, a lot of it is learned, the answer to the question of Nature vs, Nurture is simply both. IIRC you are old enough to be at the heart of the Red Scare, is your reaction to Communists in your genes? No it was taught to you by your parents, your teachers, your peers, etc. You mention people feeling bad about the Seven Deadly Sins, that is a learned response, being indoctrinated into the belief that those things are wrong results in feelings of guilt when you indulge.

Quote:
so morality doesnt exist, it is relative to environmental factors?

Is it immoral to walk up to a random person and kill them? If that same random person attacks you is it immoral to kill them in self defense? Is it immoral for a mentally handicapped person who is incapable of understanding the concept of morality to kill someone? It brings to mind the CSI episode where a toddler smothered an infant without understanding what he had done, is that an immoral act?

Quote:
no.. the implication is that absent established ethical asbolutes, morality is irrelevant. should we clone humans? or does it even matter.. we clone sheeps and dogs, so whats the difference?

A relevant question which is being endlessly debated as we speak. However to the best of my knowledge it's not covered by any religion anyway so whether we subscribe to an absolute moral stance of a religion or not it's something that needs to be worked out anyway.

Quote:
as for GM food, it is being shown to be quite dangerouis, showing a number of negative side effects(on test animals anyways)...

Some of it has been found to be dangerous, some of it hasn't. Additionally whether or not a genetically engineered foodstuff is dangerous or not has no bearing on the morality of genetic engineering any more than the fact that you can make dangerous chemicals with chemistry makes chemistry immoral.

Quote:
my guess being because 'creation' need not be tampered with by imperfect beings, since things like corn and wheat were designed by God, with a purpose, to function accordingly.

So god is tampering with genetically modified corn to make it poisonous? That seems like a pretty dickheaded thing to do since most people have eaten or will in not too long eat genetically modified food without even knowing. It's much more likely that we simply don't have the experience with genetic engineering to consistently achieve the results we want.

Quote:
youre right, a whole lot separates the two species... like a completely different design, for one. you can make the inference that at one point nothing seperated these species, but thats a guess as far as im concerned, since we have yet to see any of these hypothetical cross species that evolutionists rely on to explain the origins of life

And you can keep telling yourself that all you like but it doesn't change reality.

Quote:
yes.. so where did this first tree come from? wasnt it a seed? if not, was this first 'seed' an exception?

The first tree came from a seed of a plant that was almost a tree, a few dozen or hundred generations earlier it was clearly not a tree, a few hundred generations before that is was a non-seeding plant, and it continues until the first life-form whatever that was.

Quote:
you want me to believe things spontanously decide for themselves what shape and form they take, such as the first tree seed

I've covered this absurd strawman before.

Quote:
scientists, in all their glory, have yet to create life from non life, despite their vast combined 'intelligence'.

Has anyone here ever said that science has all the answers now? There's only a few people in the entire would who would be so deluded as to say that. Building nucleotides and amino acids from scratch would be a slow, tedious job that is probably beyond our current grasp of chemistry, but we have created most of the necessary components and will likely someday get to the point where building genomes from scratch and creating living beings out of raw materials is possible.

Quote:
amino acids and nucleotides were already in existence.. where did they originate, and what defined their functions?

Biochemistry, as I've said before we have created amino acids and nucleotides in many different types of likely pre-biotic environments. We've done that in just over 50 years of very non-continuous work in very small sample areas, given the entirety of the Earth with millions or billions of years to work it's not surprising that it happened (if it happened).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 5:57 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
scientists, in all their glory, have yet to create life from non life, despite their vast combined 'intelligence'.

Has anyone here ever said that science has all the answers now? There's only a few people in the entire would who would be so deluded as to say that. Building nucleotides and amino acids from scratch would be a slow, tedious job that is probably beyond our current grasp of chemistry, but we have created most of the necessary components and will likely someday get to the point where building genomes from scratch and creating living beings out of raw materials is possible.

But do you think that one day science will have all the answers? Because if so, I submit to you that that belief is beyond firm and final proof, and I certainly can't see a way that it might be provable via the scientific method. In which case, how would one classify such a belief?

(Of course, I realize that you may not think that that's the case, but I have certainly met any number of people who do. Their faith is touching, if not justified.)

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 6:02 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the argument was that though you may not be able to perceive a thing directly, if it's real it will have an observable effect.

Of course, the trouble with this line of reasoning is that if one has certain presuppositions (say, for instance, "Given any observable phenomenon, that phenomenon has a natural explanation") then even if there was a God who did produce observable effects, one would reject the possibility that the observable effect was caused by God on the basis of their presupposition. So while it is certainly reasonable to say that if something is real it will have an observable effect, one's presuppositions might be such that they will reject certain possibilities outright if such possibilities conflict with their presuppositions. So the maxim "if it's real it will have an observable effect" may be true, but might, at the same time, have limited utility for establishing your case.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal,

I think we're at the same beginning point though we got there in different ways. Which is that we are real, and so is the world. (I call it an assumption, you says it's logically proven.) Am I right ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:55 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal,

I think we're at the same beginning point though we got there in different ways. Which is that we are real, and so is the world. (I call it an assumption, you says it's logically proven.) Am I right?

Not quite. I say it's properly basic belief (for which justification can be given, if not firm and final proof).

Here's what I think I can offer in the way of agreement:

1) I exist
2) An external world exists
3) Other minds like mine exist in the world

But I want in on the record that I'm not offering anything in the way of stipulation concerning the nature of that external world or the nature of those other minds.

Also, for the record, I still hold that the cogito constitutes firm and final proof of one's own existence.

And, for the record, you didn't answer my objections to your epistemology.

Because I would argue that my "properly basic belief" is nothing more than your "intuitive thinking" in other terms. And if "intuitive thinking" constitutes "inherent proof" than it may be the case that one can have knowledge, and not mere presupposition.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 6:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well,

(Took some time to watch the family favorite TV show.)

The thing is you haven't answered my objection.

The dream self feels (je pense) that it has an independent physical existence (je suis). Our waking self feels it has an independent physical existence. But like our dream self, there isn't any objective proof that we're anything but a dream of something else.

So, though we got to this point from different directions, I'd prefer to skip past this point and get on to something more interesting.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:47 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well,

(Took some time to watch the family favorite TV show.)

The thing is you haven't answered my objection.

The dream self feels (je pense) that it has an independent physical existence (je suis). Our waking self feels it has an independent physical existence. But like our dream self, there isn't any objective proof that we're anything but a dream of something else.

So, though we got to this point from different directions, I'd prefer to skip past this point and get on to something more interesting.

The difference, of course, is that when you dream, it is you that dreams. The experiences that you have when you dream may be counterfeit, they may be the product of your subconscious working out the kinks, but it is still you having the (dreaming) experience. The dreaming "character" doesn't feel, and it doesn't think. It is the mind of the dreamer that controls them. There's absolutely no reason to suppose that the "characters" of our dreams are thinking for themselves--rather, they do what they do in virtue of what our subconscious mind is making them do, and not under their own volition. If the "characters" in our dreams were acting under their own volition, they would be distinct entities from ourselves and not mere characters in a dream. You seem to take the mere fact that we dream, and that our dreams are populated with "characters" as evidence for the possibility that we are mere characters in someone else's dream. But the fact that your will is self-guided, that you can choose to think about whatever you choose to think about argues strongly in favor of the view that you are your own autonomous being. There's no reason to think that the characters in dreams are autonomous beings, any more than there is to think that characters in books really think for themselves. But we do. And the fact that there is some thing that is thinking guarantees the existence of that thing. There's no evidence that a non-existent thing can think.

Your preference notwithstanding, I find this quite interesting, because you're the first person I've ever talked with who seriously asserted that there's no way to prove one's own existence. That seems (to me, at least) so self-evidently wrong that I'm curious to see how you'd defend it.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 4:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal

I understand that completely.

But the 'dream you' that subjectively to itself independently exists doesn't actually exist. As dreams indicate, a subjective feeling of existence isn't enough to prove a real physical one. And that still is the crux of the matter. Our waking subjective sense of existence may be the product of something else.

Aside from that, you're using references to other things as if they were real and independent evidence of an objective existence. Everything in my dreams works to create a shared sense of reality. Everyone in the dream is on the same page with the reality of the dream. The same is true of our waking consciousness. IF it's all a dream and my dream character (who thinks itself is real) is dealing with another dream character Causal telling me it's real, how is that proof ?

Other philosophers do understand this conundrum, so I'm not sure why you've fixated on one particular argument to believe.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 4:39 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal

I understand that. But the 'dream you' that subjectively to itself independently exists doesn't actually exist. A subjective feeling of existence isn't enough to prove a real physical one. And that still is the crux of the matter. Our waking subjective sense of existence may be the product of something else.

Aside from that, you're using references to other things as if they were real and independent evidence of an objective existence. Everything in my dreams works to create a shared sense of reality. Everyone in the dream is on the same page with the reality of the dream. The same is true of our waking consciousness. IF it's all a dream and I'm merely imagining that there is this character Causal telling me it's real, how is that proof ?

Other philosophers do understand this conundrum, so I'm not sure why you've fixated on one particular argument to believe.

Ah, so now I'm stupider than other philosophers, eh? You're using my screen name again, so I must be in trouble.

With all due respect to you and your education (which seems to be considerable), I doubt that you have read broadly enough on the subject to talk about what "other philosophers" have to say on the subject. Many, many philosophers have been sceptics. Many of the brightest philosophical minds have been sceptics of one sort or another (think David Hume and Bertrand Russell). But as far as I am aware, no philosopher has seriously advanced the belief that one cannot even know that one exists. If you can refer me to a philosophy journal in which someone has advanced such an argument, however, I would be happy to read it.

You make much of dreams, so let us deal with your dream arguments.

In the first place, arguments from dreams or illusions are hardly original. It was Plato who first proposed the illustration of the cave--proposing the world of the forms and the "shadow world." Descartes took the dream argument in a different direction by using it to question what he could really know. Descartes asked whether one could really know about the external world. Dreams, he thought, were deceptive; we see things in dreams that seem real, but aren't, so obviously our senses can be deceived. How, then, can we know we can trust our senses when they're awake? Perhaps they're deceiving us. Perhaps, furthermore, there's a malicious demon deceiving me (later versions of the argument have a disembodied brain in a vat being fed information by an evil scientist). How can I trust any of the data of my senses? I can't, Descartes concluded, because it is at least possible for my senses to be deceived. But, he thought, one thing is true, every time it is thought: "I exist." A non-existent thing cannot have thoughts of its own--only an existent thing can think.

Your argument turns around a number misapprehensions. The first is your concept of a "dream you." You think that the "dream you" that "subjectively independently exists" doesn't really exist, because a "subjective feeling of existence" isn't sufficient to prove physical existence. There are at least three things wrong with this. In the first place, the "dream me" and the "waking me" aren't two different entities--they are the same. One-and-the-same mind experiences my waking reality and my dreaming reality. Hence the fact that I can remember things that happened in my dreams. If my dreams were experience by some entity completely different than myself, how could I have any memory of the experiences of my dreams? This, of course, does not mean that things that happen in dreams really occur in the real world, but it does mean that it is one-and-the-same mind experiencing both dreaming states and waking states. In the second place, I would argue that a subjective feeling of existence is exactly sufficient to prove one's existence to one's self. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that the people that I see in my dreams have thoughts of their own. They are the products of my mind, and as such are given the appearance of independence by my mind. But there is no reason whatever to think that those characters of my dreams have minds of their own. Those characters do not experience things. They do not think independently, they do not act independently. And the appearance that they do is no more compelling than the appearance of motion on a movie screen (when all you're really seeing is successive images). In the third place, when you say, "A subjective feeling of existence isn't enough to prove a real physical one," you betray the fact that your presuppositions remain firmly in place. You still presuppose that physical existence is all there is. Might it not also be the case that the physical world is an illusion? You seem ready enough to abandon certainty in your own existence--can you not then abandon certainty that there is a physical world?

Your discussion of dreams is deeply flawed. "Everyone," you say, that populates your dream world "works to create a shared sense of reality." "Everyone," you say, "is on the same page with the reality of the dream." The same, you say, is true of waking reality. But if dreams are mere products of my brain, the term "everyone" is misapplied here. There is no "everyone" in my dream. There is only a counterfeit reality presented to my conscious by my subconscious. If that is the case, there's no reason at all to suppose that the people that I see in my dreams have their own autonomous existence. But suppose that dreams aren't the product of my own mind. Suppose that when I dream, I really do experience a kind of reality. Suppose that truly autonomous beings--beings with their own independent existence and volition--present themselves to my mind. If that is the case, then there's no reason at all to suppose that they cease to exist when my dream concludes. If those others in my dream have autonomous existence, they exist quite apart from what I think about them. I can be quite certain that I am no mere "character in a dream" because I can experience my own autonomy. I can choose think of pink elephants wearing leather vests if I please--I can even choose what color the leather vest will be. I have a volition of my own. And unless you can show how it might be possible for a non-existent being (say, a person in my dream) to have autonomy (which would imply existence) your dream-based argument is going to fail. For a being that is autonomous is by definition a existent being, for a thing can't be autonomous and still not exist--that violates non-contradiction. You present your case as though the burden of proof lies exclusively on me, but in the case of your marvelous non-existent-yet-autonomous-dream-people the burden is on you to show how such logically-impossible existence could obtain. How could something that does not exist think?

By the by, I suspect that the reason that you're irked by my insistence on continuing this line of conversation is because you take it as indisputably true that one cannot prove one's own existence. But I cannot agree to that. And so again, we've found ourselves at loggerhead because of one of your cherished presuppositions.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 4:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"They are the products of my mind"

EVERYTHING you experience is a product of your mind.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As long as this spot is here - consciousness - a subjective sense of self - is a slippery concept indeed.

You would say that if you are unaware of something it wouldn't cease to exist. If you are awake and unaware of your dream-self, does it cease to exist ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:03 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"They are the products of my mind"

EVERYTHING you experience is a product of your mind.

Then you don't believe that there is an external world? I thought that we were agreed on that point? If everything is a product of your mind, then an external world (which, being external to you, is by definition not created by you) cannot exist. If everything is a product of your mind, then all that exists in the entire universe is your mind.

And seriously, that's the only thing you can object to?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:10 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I believe in an external world, the operative word being believe. I don't consider it to be proved, I make the assumption (which I'm unwilling to test BTW).

And just b/c the only way we know of the world is though our mind, doesn't mean I consider it proved that the only thing which exists is my mind either.

You sort of jump from one extreme to the other in characterizing my argument.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:14 AM

CAUSAL

But how can you reconcile the belief that everything is a product of your mind (in which case nothing would existence except your mind) with the belief that there is an external world (which, if it is external to you, cannot possibly be a product of your mind)?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Everything YOU EXPERIENCE is a product of your mind. If a tree fell in the forest and it didn't impinge on your mind, as far as your mind is concerned, it never happened.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:20 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I believe in an external world, the operative word being believe. I don't consider it to be proved, I make the assumption (which I'm unwilling to test BTW).

And just b/c the only way we know of the world is though our mind, doesn't mean I consider it proved that the only thing which exists is my mind either.

You sort of jump from one extreme to the other in characterizing my argument.

Since you editted this while I was responding, I'm just to reply again.

In the first place, your initial statement wasn't that the only way we know the world is through our minds; you said, "EVERYTHING is a product of our minds." There is a huge difference. Knowing something via the agency of our minds allows for something other than our minds to exist. Everything's being the product of our minds does not.

As I see it, I'm not "jumping to extremes" in terms of my interaction with your argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the contradictory statements you yourself are making (confer with the "intuitive thinking leads to inherent belief post) (which you've yet to reply to).

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:23 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Everything YOU EXPERIENCE is a product of your mind. If a tree fell in the forest and it didn't impinge on your mind, as far as your mind is concerned, it never happened.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Absolutely, what is presented to my mind by my senses is the product of the interpretation of sensory input by my mind. But in so saying, you're saying nothing substantive about the external world. Discussing the experiential given is not the same thing as discussing the external reality that exerts causal influence on your senses (and thus that provides the data for the senses).

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What I said was:

Everything YOU EXPERIENCE is a product of your mind.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:27 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I said was:

Everything YOU EXPERIENCE is a product of your mind.

Well, again, equivocation. Two alternate interpretations of what you said:

"Everything that a person can have an experience of is a product of your mind."

"Everything that is experienced is experienced by the mind."

Don't blame me for your ambiguity.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:32 AM

CAUSAL

This conversation is getting nowhere. If anything, I think this should at least show you that your beliefs aren't as self-evident as you think they are. People really can hold well-thought-out opinions that contradict your own without merely ignoring what you take to be obvious.

I'd also like to point out that there are a great many things that you believe that you both admit to not having any proof for, and also admit to not being interested in even trying to prove. That being the case, I hope that you will extend some courtesy to people who say, "I believe in God even though I cannot give firm and final proof of his existence." I also hope you will try to be understanding towards people who aren't interested in trying to prove the existence of a supernatural. You say you can't prove you exist, and this seems self-evidently wrong to me, but I think you want me to extend you the courtesy of allowing you to believe that without heaping scorn on you (although argument is another thing). Many, many people believe in non-physical things (including God) even though this seems self-evidently wrong to you. I hope that you will extend them the courtesy of allowing them to believe that without heaping scorn on them.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'll take door B Bob ... which is closer to what I meant.

But it was in response to you using the subjective experience of the world as proof of the subjective sense of self. I also did try to clarify it with the tree in the forest example. I wasn't leaving you hanging with a single two word phrase. With all the other words around it in it's original form, it should have been clear. (Though I did have to copy/ past the gist of my argument two additional times before you apparently read it.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:43 AM

CAUSAL

Ref my "this is going nowhere" comment.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Why so ? I was hoping we could at least stipulate to a real world with us having a real existence. I keep coming back to that point and asking to move on, since we agree. You seem unable to get beyond that. CAN we at least move on ????

PS I do have to say I think I've been VERY clear in my use of words and my arguments. The flaw seems to be in your interpretation, caused by careless reading.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:51 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Why so ? I was hoping we could at least stipulate to a real world with us having a real existence. I keep coming back to that point and asking to move on, since we agree. You seem unable to get beyond that.

If you look above, you'll see that I thought we could agree on the following:

1) I exist
2) Other minds like mine exist
3) An external world exists

I wasn't ready to offer anything beyond that. As far as I'm concerned, "(4) Nothing physical exists" is compatible with (1), (2), and (3). Cf. George Berkeley.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:55 AM

CAUSAL

Also, perhaps we should move this into another thread?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Absitively and posolutely !!!!

Shall we call it the Causal and Rue thread ???

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:01 AM

CAUSAL

Sure, but only if we add something like, "Philosophical Grudge Match"!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Can I inject $0.02 here? As far as I can tell there really are several assumptions that one must make w/ the benefit of proof. It seems that that one has to reject Berkeley's subjective idealism at it's root assumption. (Even movies like "the Matrix" and "Total Recall" dabble their toes in the concept.)

But since you've both agreed that a "real world" exists, shall we create a new thread?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:39 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But do you think that one day science will have all the answers?

I would not be surprised if it did, but I don't expect it will and certainly not any time soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 7:23 AM

CAUSAL

I've created a new thread here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29741&m=520971#520971. Could you flesh out a little more of your rejection of Berkeley's idealism there?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 7:24 AM

CAUSAL

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29741&m=520971#520971

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 8:33 AM

FREDGIBLET

Brought over from here: http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29741&m=522980#522980

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation

1 Corinthians 2
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. "

so Jesus, Judiasm, the Canaanites, and the rest of the ancient world.. thats not 'positive evidence' to you? but aside from that, take a look around.. it should be obvious

Romans 1
"..what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Like leadb said, this does not constitute evidence for creation.

Quote:
if your argument has holes it in, they deserve to be exposed.

Certainly, and you'll have a tough time finding a scientist who disagrees, in fact most scientists play devils advocate when they propose a new hypothesis in order to point out the weaknesses from the start.

The problem is this, you and others like you use arguments that were debunked decades (sometimes even a century) ago, this does nothing to add to the discussion. If you have something new to add then by all means do so, but if all you are going to do is rehash debunked arguments then you are just throwing chaff into the argument.

Quote:
a completely absent fossil record of missing links is one of them.

You choosing not to acknowledge the fossil record does not mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:
matter exploding from nowhere

This is not actually proven yet and at any rate has nothing to do with evolution, if you want to talk about cosmology then talk about cosmology not biology.

Quote:
arising from nothing to design and evolve itself is another

As I've said before we have produced amino acids and nucleotides in several likely pre-biotic environments, abiogenesis is perfectly plausible. Also like I've said before abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things, abiogenesis is not essential to evolution.

Quote:
Quote:
This is the same argument that I used in a previous thread, many religions (particularly organized religions) lend themselves to abuse and, just like any other power structure, attract those who want to abuse power

fair enough.. but so does secular atheism. you are not immune to corruption either

Um... So the argument I made is that the power structures of organized religion can be easily abused and you are saying that the same applies to atheism which is not organized nor has a power structure...interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 8:50 AM

MAL4PREZ

I have to ask: antimason, are you quoting from the Bible to prove that what the Bible says is true?

***head spinning***

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE