Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:30 am**

Beanybag,

No, sir. I haven't invented a new definition. Even if you are stating that the truth value of something cannot be known or is unknowable, that is a contradiction.

Again, to say that truth value is UNKNOWABLE, is saying that you KNOW something about it. Its like saying X = Not X
The proposition immediately refutes itself OR you're asking me to make your statement an exception to what you're asserted. And why would I do that?

Its exactly like making these similar statements.
There is no truth
The truth cannot be known
The truth goes beyond thought
The truth cannot be spoken
Opposites can be both be true
And so forth....

It simply does not matter where you say the proposition is. ANY PROPOSITION at ANY PLACE cannot contradict itself if it wants to uphold its truth value. Relativism and pluralism makes no logical or rational sense.
Even just disagreeing with my position proves that I am right because YOU CANNOT DENY TRUTH WITHOUT AFFIRMING YOUR OWN.

Also, I am denying that animals have a non-spatial substance called a mind. So, yes, you cannot "know" "things" like propositions, truth value, and so forth without one. This is metaphysics, sir. Again, you cannot make metaphysical claims about animals by observing constant conjunction, that's irrational, sir. That's like saying there is a tomorrow, or if you jump right now gravity will pull you back down to earth. Its beyond the discipline you cite to make those claims.

Also, there is no contradiction on my part because hard drives contain information, that's absurd as an objection. Where did the hard drive originate, sir? From a mind? Where did the information on the hard drive originate? From a mind, correct?

Define algorythmn, sir. In one swoop, I will show you that a mind is necessary in order to have an algoritmn.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:15 am**

domokunrox wrote:Its exactly like making these similar statements.
There is no truth
The truth cannot be known
The truth goes beyond thought
The truth cannot be spoken
Opposites can be both be true
And so forth....

It simply does not matter where you say the proposition is. ANY PROPOSITION at ANY PLACE cannot contradict itself if it wants to uphold its truth value. Relativism and pluralism makes no logical or rational sense.
Even just disagreeing with my position proves that I am right because YOU CANNOT DENY TRUTH WITHOUT AFFIRMING YOUR OWN.

You should try refuting what I said. I am not denying truth. I am asserting the truth value about a proposition's knowability. Even mathematicians do this. You are making yourself sound quite foolish. There's an area of quantum mechanics which easily shows that certain knowledge will preclude the knowability of other knowledge. None of these things deny truth.

edit: It's also worth pointing out that there is actually a branch of logic in which 'opposites' (which I take to mean contradictory statements) can be both true. I'm wondering how much you actually know about truth and logic to begin with. Are you aware of what logical systems you even use?

Also, there is no contradiction on my part because hard drives contain information, that's absurd as an objection. Where did the hard drive originate, sir? From a mind? Where did the information on the hard drive originate? From a mind, correct?

Define algorythmn, sir. In one swoop, I will show you that a mind is necessary in order to have an algoritmn.

It's probably too late. Information is contained within an animal's brain and they don't have a mind. Mindless creatures preceded minded creatures chronologically according to evolution, so you cannot argue that their information is the result of a human mind. I'm guessing this is where you assert God's mind even though it's entirely irrelevant and not demonstrable?

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:32 pm**

Beanybag wrote:You should try refuting what I said. I am not denying truth. I am asserting the truth value about a proposition's knowability. Even mathematicians do this. You are making yourself sound quite foolish. There's an area of quantum mechanics which easily shows that certain knowledge will preclude the knowability of other knowledge. None of these things deny truth.

edit: It's also worth pointing out that there is actually a branch of logic in which 'opposites' (which I take to mean contradictory statements) can be both true. I'm wondering how much you actually know about truth and logic to begin with. Are you aware of what logical systems you even use?

You should try reading what I said, so you get see why I already refuted you.
I allegedly told you what the truth is ABOUT truth value. So, when you DENY what I JUST TOLD YOU, it REFUTES YOUR POSITION because in order to deny it, you must affirm it. In order to uphold your theory, you should have just sticked to what I told you. Which is, claim your ignorance.

I am what you would call a proposition specialist, so lets go ahead and look at your new alleged assertion. Luckily for you, I am also the certainty specialist here.
"certain knowledge will preclude the knowability of other knowledge"

First of all, this assertion is skepticism, not a claim to knowledge which is what you're claiming you are proposing us to believe and accept. You're clearly holding a presupposition here.
You're clearly talking about an axiom, but what axiom is that? And why would such axiom in question make propositional truth bearers impossible to know? Is your axiom consistent? Regardless of any of the answers you can provide for these questions, the fact is that you don't have justification for your axiom. Regardless of the axiom you're claiming to base your assertion on, your statement STILL contradicts itself.

If we use a symbol like "1" for example to represent truth, here is what you're saying

1 (Your presuppositional axiom) makes all other 1's NOT 1

You've made an exception fallacy to make a contradiction. This isn't a proposition. This is just radical inconsistant skepticism with clear presuppositions, sir.

Also, there is no branch in logic where contrary statements can both be true.
You're talking about Dialetheism, sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
Dialetheism is a truth theory (or as I like to call it, proves itself certainly wrong), and contains no propositions.

I am clearly aware of the logic I stand on, sir. Formal logic.

Beanybag wrote:It's probably too late. Information is contained within an animal's brain and they don't have a mind. Mindless creatures preceded minded creatures chronologically according to evolution, so you cannot argue that their information is the result of a human mind. I'm guessing this is where you assert God's mind even though it's entirely irrelevant and not demonstrable?

No, sir. Its CLEARLY evident that you presuppose naturalism. Why would you presuppose that? You need to provide the justification for that worldview in order to save yourself from argument from ignorance, sir.

My position is that both you and I are NOT ignorant. However, I'm going to let you prove your position since you are in affirmative, and I'm not interested in knocking down strawmen that you won't argue for.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:23 pm**

domokunrox wrote:
Beanybag wrote:You should try refuting what I said. I am not denying truth. I am asserting the truth value about a proposition's knowability. Even mathematicians do this. You are making yourself sound quite foolish. There's an area of quantum mechanics which easily shows that certain knowledge will preclude the knowability of other knowledge. None of these things deny truth.

edit: It's also worth pointing out that there is actually a branch of logic in which 'opposites' (which I take to mean contradictory statements) can be both true. I'm wondering how much you actually know about truth and logic to begin with. Are you aware of what logical systems you even use?
Also, there is no branch in logic where contrary statements can both be true.
You're talking about Dialetheism, sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
Dialetheism is a truth theory (or as I like to call it, proves itself certainly wrong), and contains no propositions.

I am clearly aware of the logic I stand on, sir. Formal logic.

No, not Dialetheism. Paraconsistent logic. Contradictions are tolerated although still not preferred. Formal logic is a little dated, perhaps you mean first-order logic? Propositional logic? There's also the increasingly popular fuzzy logic, which I'm a fan of. Of course, they all have their own problems. As does even Peano Arithmetic.

As for the rest of this, I don't know how you are a propositional expert, but I have a degree in computer science which would be the field that deals with decidability problems, or unknowable problems. So I do math for a living and I'd say this is something I have a strong handle of. Since you are a propositional expert, however, please tell me where the flaw in my proof is.

Code: Select all

Demonstration of unknowability.
(E) = existential quantifier, (A) = universal quantifier, & = and, || = or, -> = implicitive operator, ! = negation operator
momentum(X,Y) = Y is the momentum of X
know(X,Y) = x knows the value of y
position(X,Y) = Y is the position of X
electron(X) = X is an electron.
observer(X) = X is an observer

1. (A)x.electron(x) -> (E)x(E)y.position(x,y) & momentum(x,z) :: Quantum Mechanics, each particle has both a spin and a momentum.
2. (A)x(A)o(E)y.electron(x) & observer(o) & know(o,y) & position(x,y) -> (E)z.!know(o,z) & momentum(x,z) :: Uncertainty principle. Knowledge about the position precludes knowledge about momentum.
3. (A)x(A)o(E)y.electron(x) & observer(o) & know(o,z) & momentum(x,z) -> (E)y.!know(o,y) & position(x,y) :: Uncertainty principle. Knowledge about the momentum precludes knowledge about position.

Here's our presuppositions. Now, let's see if we can know both the momentum and the position of an electron.

4. (E)x(E)z(E)z(E)o.observer(o) & electron(x) & position(x,y) & momentum(x,z) & know(o,y) & know(o,z) :: An observer knows both the momentum and position of an electron.

Proof.
Converted to propositional logic. Dropped universals, skolemized existentials, applied demorgans and dropped implications, created unique variables, etc.
1. x
2. !pos(y) || !mom(z)
3. x || o || know(y) || pos(y)
4. x || o || know(z) || mom(z)
5. !know(z) 
6. mom(z))
7. !know(y)
8. pos(y)
introduce:
9. o || x || mom(z) || pos(y) || know(z) || know(y)
Resolve 1&9
2. !pos(y) || !mom(z)
3. x || o || know(y) || pos(y)
4. x || o || know(z) || mom(z)
5. !know(z) 
6. mom(z))
7. !know(y)
8. pos(y)
10. o || mom(z) || pos(y) || know(z) || know(y)
Resolve 3 & 10
2. !pos(y) || !mom(z)
4. x || o || know(z) || mom(z)
5. !know(z) 
6. mom(z))
7. !know(y)
8. pos(y)
11. mom(z) || know(z)
Resolve 6 & 11.
2. !pos(y) || !mom(z)
4. x || o || know(z) || mom(z)
[b]5. !know(z) [/b]
6. mom(z))
7. !know(y)
8. pos(y)
[b]12. know(z)[/b]
Contradiction found. 5 & 12.

Proof by resolution. There is a contradiction. Thus, you cannot know both the momentum and the position of the electron. If you know the momentum, its position is unknowable, and vice versa.

Now, I'm assuming you have a way to disprove Quantum Mechanics, then, or at least the uncertainty principle? It's a very well supported and tested scientific theory, so I'm sure your case must be very strong.

Beanybag wrote:It's probably too late. Information is contained within an animal's brain and they don't have a mind. Mindless creatures preceded minded creatures chronologically according to evolution, so you cannot argue that their information is the result of a human mind. I'm guessing this is where you assert God's mind even though it's entirely irrelevant and not demonstrable?
No, sir. Its CLEARLY evident that you presuppose naturalism. Why would you presuppose that? You need to provide the justification for that worldview in order to save yourself from argument from ignorance, sir.

My position is that both you and I are NOT ignorant. However, I'm going to let you prove your position since you are in affirmative, and I'm not interested in knocking down strawmen that you won't argue for.

I do not presuppose naturalism. Only basic empiricism and mathematics. No unjustified foundations here. You should be able to agree to these premises. From this I can clearly tell, using information theory, that animals can store information in their brains, as evidence by their memory and basic reasoning. They are capable of basic computation in this way. Now, this would seem to be information without a mind. Where is the mind? Need I construct a proof for this too?

On another note, this is rather tedious. If you can't come up with something better, you should probably not reply. You're simply hurting your own case and and the case of others. Let others actually have a chance, they might want to present something constructive or worthwhile. You're simply asserting demonstrable falsehoods and it's not worth anyone's time.

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:56 am**

Wow Beanbag,

Paraconsistant logic is SELECTIVE dialetheism, sir. A statement and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. What you can't seem to figure out here is that if you have a system of "logic" that gives up significant logical principals in practice, but refuse to do so in theory. You're essentially claiming you're wonder women flying the invisible plane or galloping while banging 2 halves of a coconut together. A statement and its negation asserted to both be true, at any time, any place, and any subject matter IS NOT a proposional statement. Its a theory that is self refuting, period.

Oh, so you have a degree in computer science? Wonderful. Lucky for you, I happen to have a brother who has a masters degree in computer science, so being that I love to get a second opinion I asked him myself about your uncertainty principal. He isn't a theist either, by the way, fyi.

The first thing he said was to not call it science because it has no real application. Here is my inquiry.

Who does this uncertainty principal?
"Idiots trying to say something smart. Its theory that has no real application anywhere. These theorists collect a paycheck at university to do this garbage. They wouldn't have a job anywhere unless someone who likes them went thru all the politics with the board of directors to grandfather them into the university."

So what is the uncertainty principal?
"You can say there is an uncertainty principal to something like selling used cars or you have a job and you don't know what's going to happen next. Its essentially nothing trying to rationalize a metaphysically significant statement forcefully prove on something completely baseless. Making ridiculous contradictions almost the whole time."

If you were to explain this to someone who doesn't understand computer science, how would you say it?
"Okay, so basically someone has these equations and watches them have sex, then tells you something you would expect to read from a fortune cookie. Completely stupid. Ignore them."

So, let me get my 2 cents here. You know what's wrong with your "proof"? You don't know what you're proving and you're talking to try to make a metaphysical significant statement. Metaphysics is completely out of your ability. You can try, but you're irrational to do so. Metaphysics is for philosophers, not for you "scientists".

Lastly, yes, you do presuppose naturalism, sir. Adding mathematics doesn't exclude you from your clear presupposition of naturalism. Where does mathematics exist, sir? I myself, have never used my senses to detect numbers, plus, minus, multiply, divide, and so forth. You believe these things exist, so you're going to have to show me where they exist.

Here we are, either you are a rational realist or phenomenonist. You haven't even answered to the most basic challenges I presented. If you can't come up with an epistomology for your assertions on metaphysics, then you are simply irrational, pointless, and not worth anyones time. Don't bother posting in a philosophy forum until you decide to be academically honest.

And this is for everyone else here. Don't waste your time with him.

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:28 am**

domokunrox wrote: So what is the uncertainty principal?
"You can say there is an uncertainty principal to something like selling used cars or you have a job and you don't know what's going to happen next. Its essentially nothing trying to rationalize a metaphysically significant statement forcefully prove on something completely baseless. Making ridiculous contradictions almost the whole time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg ... _principle

you lost me here, what does his point have to do with used cars again?

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:54 am**

domokunrox wrote:
So what is the uncertainty principal?
"You can say there is an uncertainty principal to something like selling used cars or you have a job and you don't know what's going to happen next. Its essentially nothing trying to rationalize a metaphysically significant statement forcefully prove on something completely baseless. Making ridiculous contradictions almost the whole time."

Dom,

I do not think your brother knows much about the uncertainty principle, and even if he does it is only because he is misinformed. The below might give you a better picture.

The uncertainly principle is applied in theoretical and practical physics.
http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Hei ... iple.shtml

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... icide2.htm

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Phys ... inty6.html

http://www.halexandria.org/dward159.htm

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:34 pm**

Uncertainty principle is not an example of an undecidable problem, by the way, just an example that something can be unknowable. The best example is the halting problem, and all undecidable problems will be shown to reduce to it. Sometimes you can find a way to show that specific program will or will not halt on a specific input, but you can't prove the general case. In mathematics, however, certain problems mathematicians had been trying to solve for centuries were suddenly shown to be impossible to solve, or have an unknowable answer, using the computational theory. Now, I don't care about anything that's metaphysical in this case, if your metaphysics accepts math (say, set theory), then these conclusions will follow - although, good luck trying to reduce math to logic . Also, dialethiesm is just an idea, not a logical system, it needn't apply universally but could apply for specific systems such as for uncollapsed wave functions to resolve the Schrodinger's cat paradox. The rest of the comments just seem kind of off-handed and nonconstructive. I am not trying to presuppose anything. I've seen nothing that you've said that makes me have to provide my own foundational justifications though.

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:17 am**

Echoside,
Nothing! You'll see what I mean. Continue reading.

Neo-x,
Beanybag's argument is that the uncertainty principal is significant "knowledge" and has some case to be made in computational science. Continue reading.

Beanybag,
Let me explain something again. Of course we KNOW that we are limited in our KNOWLEDGE. Here's a question? So what? What you however are saying is that there is KNOWLEDGE that is UNKNOWABLE.
What you seem to continually not understand is the logically incoherent statement that it is. You said, "Good luck reducing math to logic". I don't need to, sir. Math PRESUPPOSES logic. You are telling me that you are flying the invisible plane, sir. Do you understand?
You say that you don't care about anything metaphysical, but that's where the first problem is. Your statement is a contradiction.
You claim to have KNOWLEDGE that "something" is "UNKNOWABLE"
The word "IS" in the sentence is a statement of identity, and that's what makes it a contradiction. You cannot have contradictions in logic (the logic your math stands on).
The only statement you can make is as follows:
I am ignorant about X
I know I am ignorant about X
My abilities or my method cannot reveal knowledge about X
My abilities or my method have revealed that X is not a valid proposition (requires metaphysical justification)

Off the top of my head, there's 4 statements you CAN make.
The problem again is that you are not making a statement like these. You've clearly presupposed that the scientific method, and/or mathematics (without metaphysic and without justification) is omniscient. This is naturalism and this is false.

If you want to contiously claim that your mathematics is in any way significant, you MUST have justification (what is math? Where does it exist? Where did it come from? Etc)
Until you do so, we all have to reject it here. We do philosophy here, we don't blindly accept assertions trying to convey something meaningful without a meaningful structure presented.

If you want to assert scientism or mathematism, be academically honest and provide adequate justification. Otherwise, do not post it and waste the precious time of others. This is a discussion board for academics. This is not a board for propagating whatever it may be. Pretty sure its in the forum rules. If not, it should be.

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:14 pm**

domokunrox wrote:If you want to contiously claim that your mathematics is in any way significant, you MUST have justification (what is math? Where does it exist? Where did it come from? Etc)
Until you do so, we all have to reject it here. We do philosophy here, we don't blindly accept assertions trying to convey something meaningful without a meaningful structure presented.

If you want to assert scientism or mathematism, be academically honest and provide adequate justification. Otherwise, do not post it and waste the precious time of others. This is a discussion board for academics. This is not a board for propagating whatever it may be. Pretty sure its in the forum rules. If not, it should be.

Academics? What are you on about? I'm not asserting any ontological view, I don't have a working metaphysics that I personally ascribe to, I try to remain open to possibilities. I'm aware of how philosophy works, it's a hobby of mine that I enjoy and will be pursuing in part on the graduate level. You can accept my premises or you can reject them. Justify them however you wish. If you can point out a flaw in my premises, do so. Do you actually have an objection to mathematics? No? Then stop throwing out red herrings and address the arguments being made.

I have asserted science which can be accurate on any basic level of empiricism. Do you reject that our perceptions hold any truth? No? Then get on with it. I have asserted mathematics. Do you think mathematics has no truth? No? Then get on with it. I don't have a philosophy of math, nor do I need one. I don't have a metaphysical theory nor do I need one. This is philosophy. We can work within certain frameworks using presuppositions. If you wish to reject a premise, provide a reason for doing so.

You can reject mathematics and logic as being incomplete, never shown to be consistent unless it is inconsistent, presupposing logic, 'existence' of negations or 'nothings', etc. None of these things have been proven. It's possible that it is impossible to prove these things. I am not saying that knowledge is unknowable if you are saying that knowledge presupposes a knower. I am saying that certain information is unknowable in that knowledge is a subset of information (in the physical sense only) and information theory or computational theory hold correct. The value of a certain proposition cannot be said to be true or false. This is not difficult. Your objections have been silly and, even if some have any bearing, fall only on semantics. Infer the actual meaning and then address the actual argument. The burden of proof is difficult to establish because we have not established a default state of existence (prove that there is such thing as a 'nothing') and I've no reason to subscribe to a bottom-up approach over a top-down one. I think it's entirely fair to start with science and math as basic premises. Please show how Quantum Mechanics or Computer Science are false. If you don't even disagree with these findings, why are you even disagreeing?

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:25 pm**

(prove that there is such thing as a 'nothing')

Oh brother. Well, good luck with this one Dom.

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:56 pm**

jlay wrote:
(prove that there is such thing as a 'nothing')
Oh brother. Well, good luck with this one Dom.

When asking 'why is there something rather than nothing?', implicit in the question is that nothing is the default state of things.. Lots of complications arise from discussions on nothing and it's not so simple to presume such nothingness is even 'possible' insofar as that word has meaning. It's none too easy to describe and we've no reason to follow certain implications of negation to their ultimate conclusions when we've only observed partial negation in a limited environment. I'd ask that you prove this wrong, but you don't believe non-existence 'ever' 'was' or 'is' since you believe in God. So what exactly do you even find objectionable?

I'm noticing lots of disrespect and lots of red herrings, but little content. What is the point?

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:29 am**

Beanybag wrote:Academics? What are you on about?

I suggest looking at the board purpose thread at the top of the list.

Beanybag wrote:I'm not asserting any ontological view, I don't have a working metaphysics that I personally ascribe to, I try to remain open to possibilities.

Wait, you're not asserting any ontological view? Yet, here you are telling us that reality is composed of propositions that are BOTH true AND false? You admittedly don't have a working metaphysics structure that "you don't personally ascribe to"? Yet, you seem to have no problem but to help yourself to what is meaningful and fundamental and assert that your position is correct. You claim here that you try to remain open to possibilities, but all I've seen so far is your inability to do so.

I have revealed to you why your position doesn't work, yet you continuously deny it and attribute it to falsehood.
In order to detect falsehood, you MUST know truth. Hence, truth denying is to affirm another truth.

You refuse to even support your claims. Either you are very arrogant or you're begging the question.

Beanybag wrote:I'm aware of how philosophy works, it's a hobby of mine that I enjoy and will be pursuing in part on the graduate level.

You have much to learn. Especially with etiquette.

Beanybag wrote:You can accept my premises or you can reject them.

If you can't provide any support for your premises, why would anyone accept them? You've assumed that you are correct, and that I am wrong. Thats begging the question.

Beanybag wrote:Justify them however you wish. If you can point out a flaw in my premises, do so.

No, sir. Its not my job to justify your premises. I'm not interested in creating strawmen arguments to knock down. You need to support your own argument. This is a complete disrespect of my time.

Beanybag wrote:Do you actually have an objection to mathematics? No? Then stop throwing out red herrings and address the arguments being made.

Of course there is an objection to mathematics. Where have you been? Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

I asked you to tell me where mathematics exists. In what sense does it exist? What is it? What is it like? You need to explain why mathematics is significant to reality. The reality you claim is true.
You can't just assume something like mathematics exists, thats just irrational.

Beanybag wrote:I have asserted science which can be accurate on any basic level of empiricism.

Accurate? How accurate? Empiricism is able to reveal how much knowledge of ALL reality?

Beanybag wrote:Do you reject that our perceptions hold any truth? No? Then get on with it.

This quesiton depends entirely on what perceptions you are talking about and what you're perceive?
For example, when you walk away from your computer, and when you are no longer experiencing it. Is there "something" still there? No assertions, you MUST provide justification for your answer.
Also, can you prove that you're not having a dream? Can you show that your facts and experiences like "Fire is hot" and "I saw my car keys on the kitchen table this morning" isn't just a dream?

Beanybag wrote:I have asserted mathematics. Do you think mathematics has no truth? No? Then get on with it.

Already addressed this.

Beanybag wrote:I don't have a philosophy of math, nor do I need one.

Wrong. You do need one in order to be taken seriously and convince anyone of your worldview. Asserting mathematics is begging the question.

Beanybag wrote:I don't have a metaphysical theory nor do I need one.

Wrong again. If you have no metaphysical theory, then you have no explanatory power. Its just an assertion, and begging the question.

Beanybag wrote:This is philosophy. We can work within certain frameworks using presuppositions.

No, sir. You have much to learn about philosophy still. Presuppositions will be held against you. There are plenty of reasons to believe your presuppositions have bias and limitations.

Beanybag wrote:If you wish to reject a premise, provide a reason for doing so.

Where have you been? I've been giving you all kinds of reasons for rejecting your premises. Are you even reading?

Beanybag wrote:You can reject mathematics and logic as being incomplete, never shown to be consistent unless it is inconsistent, presupposing logic, 'existence' of negations or 'nothings', etc. None of these things have been proven.

This statement is by far the worse I've read so far. This is the got the be the most ridiculous hail mary I've read in months.

First of all, you need to define what you consider "existence". I find it hilarious that you suddenly found the backbone to assert, once again, an unjustified metaphysical structure that you refuse to specify and refuse to acknowledge its existence.

Then, by negation, you want me to prove negation exists? Thats absurd. You must have a different definition of negation or you just started to argue in a circle.

What do you mean by negation? By "nothing", do you really mean "nothing" or do you mean "something"?

For example, lets say we had this dialogue.

You: What did you have for breakfast this morning?"
Me: Nothing.
You: Did nothing taste good?

You: What are you thinking about?
Me: Nothing.
You: Can't be! You have to be thinking about something!

Which of us is properly using the word?

Its not a very complicated word at all. If you understand what the word, you understand the meaning.

Which bring my back to a question I asked earlier. When you walk away from your experience of your computer. Is there something still there? Or is there nothing there?
Is it rational to believe there is something there when you are not experiencing it? Again, are you sure you aren't having a dream?
Is what you are experiencing some kind of constant conjunction? or is your experience necessarily connected? There needs to be justification for it.

Beanybag wrote:It's possible that it is impossible to prove these things.

Heres an easy answer. Its very possible that you are wrong.

There is a clear presupposition here because you don't think you're wrong. You think you're right. You need to show me justification.

Beanybag wrote:I am not saying that knowledge is unknowable if you are saying that knowledge presupposes a knower.

This statement doesn't make sense.

Beanybag wrote:I am saying that certain information is unknowable in that knowledge is a subset of information (in the physical sense only) and information theory or computational theory hold correct.

Again, "certain" information is unknowable is a contradiction. You KNOW something about it. Namely, that YOU do not KNOW much about it. Its NOT UNKNOWABLE. You just don't have the correct tool for the job. Why can't you understand this? Again, its very clear that you presuppose naturalism. You presuppose that science/mathematics is omniscient. There is no justification for your presuppositions.

Beanybag wrote:The value of a certain proposition cannot be said to be true or false. This is not difficult.

Wow! Only a certain proposition? Why is there an exception? Yes, this is difficult. Considering you have an implicit metaphysical structure you refuse to specify and acknowledge its existence in your argument. Considering your assumption of mathematics (which presupposes logic). Considering that you refuse to justify your presuppositions. Its completely unjustified and irrational to make such claims.

Beanybag wrote:Your objections have been silly and, even if some have any bearing, fall only on semantics.

Your assertions have been outright silly.

Beanybag wrote:Infer the actual meaning and then address the actual argument.

No, sir. I'm not going to define your worldview. Again, I'm not interested in attacking strawmen.

Beanybag wrote:The burden of proof is difficult to establish because we have not established a default state of existence (prove that there is such thing as a 'nothing') and I've no reason to subscribe to a bottom-up approach over a top-down one.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim (thats you). You have failed miserably in that dept. There isn't a "default" state of "existence". I don't even know what you mean by "existence"? Are you a realist? It looks like you're a phenomenalist. Which isn't by any stretch better or more rational then believing in the biblical God. In fact, you've indicted plenty of times that "Science" and "Math" IS your ALL KNOWING God. I've shown you over and over again that your "God" isn't what you think it is.

Beanybag wrote:I think it's entirely fair to start with science and math as basic premises. Please show how Quantum Mechanics or Computer Science are false. If you don't even disagree with these findings, why are you even disagreeing?

I think its fair, too. Except you need to justify them in order to claim your rationality. Otherwise, you are worshipping it as an omniscient phenomenon.
I don't disagree with science and math, what I disagree with is what you claim and assert blindly that science and math MEANS. Namely, that science and math can give you meaning. Thats the wrong tool. Philosophy is the right one.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:02 am**

domokunrox wrote:Wait, you're not asserting any ontological view? Yet, here you are telling us that reality is composed of propositions that are BOTH true AND false? You admittedly don't have a working metaphysics structure that "you don't personally ascribe to"? Yet, you seem to have no problem but to help yourself to what is meaningful and fundamental and assert that your position is correct. You claim here that you try to remain open to possibilities, but all I've seen so far is your inability to do so.

I have revealed to you why your position doesn't work, yet you continuously deny it and attribute it to falsehood.
In order to detect falsehood, you MUST know truth. Hence, truth denying is to affirm another truth.

You refuse to even support your claims. Either you are very arrogant or you're begging the question.

Maybe things can be neither true or false maybe they can both true and false. Depends on the logic. If we can't agree to a logic, perhaps we can't get anywhere. None have been proven to be self-consistent nor capable of expressing every true statement (Godel explained this).

Beanybag wrote:You can accept my premises or you can reject them.
If you can't provide any support for your premises, why would anyone accept them? You've assumed that you are correct, and that I am wrong. Thats begging the question.

If you want to reject my claim that there is such a thing as mathematics, then fine. Now we're all solipsists.

Beanybag wrote:Do you actually have an objection to mathematics? No? Then stop throwing out red herrings and address the arguments being made.
Of course there is an objection to mathematics. Where have you been? Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

I asked you to tell me where mathematics exists. In what sense does it exist? What is it? What is it like? You need to explain why mathematics is significant to reality. The reality you claim is true.
You can't just assume something like mathematics exists, thats just irrational.

I have seen promise in formalism, platoism, constructivism, logicism, physicism, and even other ideas. I can't say which is true, and neither can anyone else really. So, which of these works for you? If none, then pick one that does. If you don't have one, then congratulations, we're all solipsists.

Accurate? How accurate? Empiricism is able to reveal how much knowledge of ALL reality?

This quesiton depends entirely on what perceptions you are talking about and what you're perceive?
For example, when you walk away from your computer, and when you are no longer experiencing it. Is there "something" still there? No assertions, you MUST provide justification for your answer.
Also, can you prove that you're not having a dream? Can you show that your facts and experiences like "Fire is hot" and "I saw my car keys on the kitchen table this morning" isn't just a dream?

Wrong. You do need one in order to be taken seriously and convince anyone of your worldview. Asserting mathematics is begging the question.

Wrong again. If you have no metaphysical theory, then you have no explanatory power. Its just an assertion, and begging the question.

No, sir. You have much to learn about philosophy still. Presuppositions will be held against you. There are plenty of reasons to believe your presuppositions have bias and limitations.

Why are you not taking this advantage to assert your own world view? I am trying to argue from your very own position, and yet, you keep dodging, trying to put the burden of proof on me. Fine. Solipsism it is.

Beanybag wrote:You can reject mathematics and logic as being incomplete, never shown to be consistent unless it is inconsistent, presupposing logic, 'existence' of negations or 'nothings', etc. None of these things have been proven.
This statement is by far the worse I've read so far. This is the got the be the most ridiculous hail mary I've read in months.

First of all, you need to define what you consider "existence". I find it hilarious that you suddenly found the backbone to assert, once again, an unjustified metaphysical structure that you refuse to specify and refuse to acknowledge its existence.

What is untrue about what I said? Consistency and completeness is something no formal mathematical system has ever achieved, not even set theory. Negation has been a subject of debate for as long as the existence of zero - is there such 'thing' as a nothing? Is it an existential concept? It's certainly much more difficult than you realize, it is not my fault if you are ignorant on the philosophy of 'nothingness'. I am not so arrogant as to assume I know the answer to these things. I have no justifications for much of the knowledge I feel I hold (neither do most people). I hold to this knowledge out of convenience and will let other people's justifications work for me. I have no world view, so I'll fall back onto solipsism if you wish to deny whatever presuppositions I have. This is my top-down approach. I wish to discover the foundations through higher order concepts if I can, since what I feel I know strongest is that which is easiest.

Which bring my back to a question I asked earlier. When you walk away from your experience of your computer. Is there something still there? Or is there nothing there?
Is it rational to believe there is something there when you are not experiencing it? Again, are you sure you aren't having a dream?
Is what you are experiencing some kind of constant conjunction? or is your experience necessarily connected? There needs to be justification for it.

Indeed there does. I have my experiences and I believe them to be true. On an academic level, I do not have a way to support this beyond simply assuming my foundations at some level, which isn't to say I believe these foundations are true nor justifiable. Maybe I am having a dream. Maybe I am in a simulation. Maybe the cohesiveness of my existence is actually an illusion and these is no persistent me. Who is to say?

Beanybag wrote:I am not saying that knowledge is unknowable if you are saying that knowledge presupposes a knower.
This statement doesn't make sense.

Can knowledge exist without a knower? Is that your objection to 'unknown' knowledge then? Should I refer to it as information instead (you've already had to concede that information exists without a mind, unless you're asserting a mind (which you haven't - am I to assume you're atheist?))? Is this all a battle of semantics?

Beanybag wrote:I am saying that certain information is unknowable in that knowledge is a subset of information (in the physical sense only) and information theory or computational theory hold correct.
Again, "certain" information is unknowable is a contradiction. You KNOW something about it. Namely, that YOU do not KNOW much about it. Its NOT UNKNOWABLE. You just don't have the correct tool for the job. Why can't you understand this? Again, its very clear that you presuppose naturalism. You presuppose that science/mathematics is omniscient. There is no justification for your presuppositions.

You're borderline lying at this point, very dishonest. Stop assuming things. You are not correct. Neither have you established beyond an assertion that unknowable things are in part known. The value in question is in no part known. You have not demonstrated otherwise, only asserted.

Beanybag wrote:The value of a certain proposition cannot be said to be true or false. This is not difficult.
Wow! Only a certain proposition? Why is there an exception? Yes, this is difficult. Considering you have an implicit metaphysical structure you refuse to specify and acknowledge its existence in your argument. Considering your assumption of mathematics (which presupposes logic). Considering that you refuse to justify your presuppositions. Its completely unjustified and irrational to make such claims.

Does math presuppose logic? Math has never been proven to be reducible to logic. This position is called logicism - are you a logicist? What if math and logic are different?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim (thats you). You have failed miserably in that dept. There isn't a "default" state of "existence". I don't even know what you mean by "existence"? Are you a realist? It looks like you're a phenomenalist. Which isn't by any stretch better or more rational then believing in the biblical God. In fact, you've indicted plenty of times that "Science" and "Math" IS your ALL KNOWING God. I've shown you over and over again that your "God" isn't what you think it is.

More dishonesty. If you're interested in being at all academic, you should probably work on checking the accuracy of your premises. You've provided little to no content, plenty of ad homs and straw men (despite your professed unwillingness to attack straw men), and have constantly battled against my humble arguments with absolutely every red herring you can find. I will argue from any point of view you have, but you haven't asserted any. Am I to infer you're a radical skeptic?

Beanybag wrote:I think it's entirely fair to start with science and math as basic premises. Please show how Quantum Mechanics or Computer Science are false. If you don't even disagree with these findings, why are you even disagreeing?
I think its fair, too. Except you need to justify them in order to claim your rationality. Otherwise, you are worshipping it as an omniscient phenomenon.
I don't disagree with science and math, what I disagree with is what you claim and assert blindly that science and math MEANS. Namely, that science and math can give you meaning. Thats the wrong tool. Philosophy is the right one.

This is the part where I ask, "OH? You agree? Why don't you get on with it then?"

To which you will boldly reply, "I will not attack straw men!"

Do you think you're on to my naturalist, science-worshipping, math-deifying tricks yet? Or perhaps you can read what I say and take it at its meaning. I have no world view. My assertions and premises rest on your own justifications for these ideas. I argue from other people's world views. If you want to deny that you agree to these premises, then fine. We'll all be a bunch of merry solipsists.

Posted: **Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:36 am**

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I have never met a moral atheist, Christian, Hindu, Buddist, Muslum, Taoist etc.... Everyone lies, cheats, steals, rapes, murders, etc.....

Yikes!! How did this get left unchallenged? Daniel, you've raped and murdered people???

Evidence for God from Science

Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism

Re: Acting morally on atheism