Evidence for God from Science

I think 1over has a valid point, in both proofs, step 3 is being glided over without proper proof. For example, if you take step 3 as a precondition and move it to "prove A" clause, then it becomes circular. This way anything can be logically proved.

Danny,
I don't think, 1over is playing with you. I think she is just trying to show you the flaw in the argument, that it could go both ways.

By the way, this argument is a typical example of how scientists hypothesized a lot of quantum physics or so I am told. :p

@neo: Thanks friend.

@Danny: Here is another example:

Prove A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Step 1: assume opposite ~A: Everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 2: ~A --> B: If everything cannot be reduced to the physical then God does exist.
Step 3: ~B: God does not exist.
Step 4: ~~A: It is not the case that everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 5: A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

neo-x wrote:I think 1over has a valid point, in both proofs, step 3 is being glided over without proper proof. For example, if you take step 3 as a precondition and move it to "prove A" clause, then it becomes circular. This way anything can be logically proved.

Danny,
I don't think, 1over is playing with you. I think she is just trying to show you the flaw in the argument, that it could go both ways.

By the way, this argument is a typical example of how scientists hypothesized a lot of quantum physics or so I am told. :p

Neo, the proof is by reductio ad absurdum, and it is perfectly valid.

Okay, so you're not playing games, you just don't get it. That's fine.

1over137 wrote:Here is another example:

Prove A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Step 1: assume opposite ~A: Everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 2: ~A --> B: If everything cannot be reduced to the physical then God does exist.
Step 3: ~B: God does not exist.
Step 4: ~~A: It is not the case that everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 5: A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Please go to the former proof, get hold of step 3, and refute it. I refuted step 3 of your bogus proof, and yet here you are, with another bogus proof. So, if you are not playing games, then prove it. Go and refute step 3 of that former proof.

DannyM wrote:If the concept of love is to lie within the domain of the discipline of evolutionary psychology, then we'd all better pack up and go home now, for knowledge of how we ought to love and how we ought to think is abandoned, replaced by a dubious, descriptive psychology. And we are reduced to self-referential absurdity.

If anyone needed reminding ... Naturalism fails on all counts.

Neo, the proof is by reductio ad absurdum, and it is perfectly valid.

ofcourse brother Danny, on ontological basis, it is,

My only objection to it, was that through reductio ad absurdum, any argument can be proved regardless of the fact that the argument is true or false. And even if the argument is true to begin with, there would be multiple contexts of that truth, and each side would choose respectively and try to conclude things.

neo-x wrote:

Neo, the proof is by reductio ad absurdum, and it is perfectly valid.

ofcourse brother Danny, on ontological basis, it is,

My only objection to it, was that through reductio ad absurdum, any argument can be proved regardless of the fact that the argument is true or false. And even if the argument is true to begin with, there would be multiple contexts of that truth, and each side would choose respectively and try to conclude things.

Neo, the argument is entirely valid by proving the impossibility of the contrary. It may not convince you, Brother, but the proof is sound. If it wasn't a sound proof then step 3 could be dealt with. Fact is it can't be dealt with. But others being unconvinced won't make me back away from the proof. 1over challenged the proof by re-wording it, giving me a separate step 3 to refute. And I did. 1over asked for the proof of If knowledge, then God. So I gave it. I didn't just dig it out and throw it up from leftfield, Bro.

Neo, ... I didn't just dig it out and throw it up from leftfield, Bro.

I know bro, and I never implied that you did. .

DannyM wrote:Okay, so you're not playing games, you just don't get it. That's fine.

I apologize for misunderstandings. I came to this forum to learn and not to pick fights. I see that for you the proposition that knowledge cannot be account in a godless universe is true. I do not see it. So, for some time we will disagree on this. I started to read that 30-pages-long article but already at page 5 I needed to look at reference 12 which is fortunately on web (at least the pages 1-10) http://books.google.sk/books?id=p40tc_T ... &q&f=false. So I am reading it now. It's not easy stuff.
I have a quoestion: What according to you a knowledge is? If I kick the stone it hurts. So I have a knowledge that kicking stones hurts. Or not? Please forgive me, if I have lay guestions.

I am missing a smiley for shaking hands.

Hana I‘m sorry, my mistake. I go on the defensive when I think I‘m being mucked about. I misread the signals and I‘m sorry.

1over137 wrote:I see that for you the proposition that knowledge cannot be account in a godless universe is true. I do not see it.

On naturalism, all arguments are the product of the naturalistic processes going through your brain, and rational debate is reduced to the equivalent of the chemical arrangement of your brain fighting against the chemical arrangement of my brain. Who’s right? Naturalism fails to adequately explain the uniformity in human thought. It cannot account for the assumed objectivity of truth. If you think it can, please explain it to me because I haven’t seen it yet.

1over137 wrote:I have a quoestion: What according to you a knowledge is? If I kick the stone it hurts. So I have a knowledge that kicking stones hurts. Or not? Please forgive me, if I have lay guestions.

Knowledge is justified true belief. I think it was Plato who called it true belief with an account. We necessarily think a certain way (and this is connected to knowledge claims). I’m talking about a little more than the knowledge of being sentient.

I don’t think I’m great at putting the point across at times, so just say if it doesn’t make sense.

I would very much like to see some definitions of knowledge in the context it is being used here.

The stone kicking got me thinking. The knowledge confirms a God argument is one I haven't totally gotten my mind around.

A person who never kicks a stone can 'know' it would hurt, because one human can communicate using abstract tokens a concrete truth. When I read a sign, "slippery when wet," I am receiving information. Is this knowledge in how it is being used here?

jlay wrote:I would very much like to see some definitions of knowledge in the context it is being used here.

Like I said, Justified true belief. Truth is necessary to knowledge. Knowledge presupposes truth. Naturalism cannot give a rational account for the uniformity in human thought that reasons to universal truths.

1over137 wrote:@neo: Thanks friend.

@Danny: Here is another example:

Prove A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Step 1: assume opposite ~A: Everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 2: ~A --> B: If everything cannot be reduced to the physical then God does exist.
Step 3: ~B: God does not exist.
Step 4: ~~A: It is not the case that everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 5: A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Are there different dimensions?

If so, then beings limited to a third dimension world view are truly limited in testing the physical world around them.

Therefore, would this limitation absolutely nullify existence within the realm of other dimensions?
-
-
-

J,

More specifically, we're talking about propositional knowledge.

http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/propo ... ledge.html

And again this link: http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledg ... heism.html

DannyM wrote:

(Could this smiley be added to others smileys also together with ?)

Now back to the discussion.

DannyM wrote: On naturalism, all arguments are the product of the naturalistic processes going through your brain, and rational debate is reduced to the equivalent of the chemical arrangement of your brain fighting against the chemical arrangement of my brain.

OK

DannyM wrote: Who’s right?

I do not see a problem here if our debate was e.g. about physical laws.

DannyM wrote: Naturalism fails to adequately explain the uniformity in human thought.

Uniformity in human thought? I do not understand what you mean here.

DannyM wrote: It cannot account for the assumed objectivity of truth. If you think it can, please explain it to me because I haven’t seen it yet.

I think that naturalism can account for the objectivity of truth. Again, if our debate was about physical laws then we could find out whose statement was true.

DannyM wrote: Like I said, Justified true belief. Truth is necessary to knowledge. Knowledge presupposes truth.

Take again physical laws. Everybody is subjected to the law of gravity. Belief that I return back to the ground when I jump is justified. So, knowledge can be accounted for in a godless universe. (Or not?)

B. W. wrote:

1over137 wrote: Prove A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Step 1: assume opposite ~A: Everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 2: ~A --> B: If everything cannot be reduced to the physical then God does exist.
Step 3: ~B: God does not exist.
Step 4: ~~A: It is not the case that everything cannot be reduced to the physical.
Step 5: A: Everything can be reduced to the physical.

Are there different dimensions? If so, then beings limited to a third dimension world view are truly limited in testing the physical world around them. Therefore, would this limitation absolutely nullify existence within the realm of other dimensions?

If you accept that there are other dimensions we never ever find out that they are, why not to accept another (and bizzare) things to exist?