Log in

View Full Version : godisimaginary.com refuted


Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 04:33 AM
Sam the Moderately Wize sent me a link: www.godisimaginary.com
It's a list of "proofs" that God is imaginary. Here they are, one by one, refuted.


Try praying (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i1.htm)
Statistically analyze prayer (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i2.htm)

Both of these are using the fact that God does not respond to prayers in any statistically important way as evidence of His non-existence. That is not logically sound. All it is evidence of is that prayers are not answered.

Look at all historical gods (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i3.htm)

There have been other religions that no longer have believers. Therefore...God is imaginary? Hmm. I don't think this is really a proof. Or logical at all.

Think about science (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i4.htm)

Here the author argues that science can only proceed by assuming that God is imaginary and prayer is meaningless. He evidences this with the story of the discovery of penicillin, noting that if fleming had assumed the bacterial death was due to a miracle he would not have made his discovery.

This is silly. God existing does not remove causality. Do religious people think that a thrown ball moving is a miracle?

Read the Bible (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i5.htm)

Some of the stuff in the bible goes against our societal ideals. Therefore God doesn't exist. I hope you can all see why this is crazy.

Ponder God's plan (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i6.htm)

God having an absolute plan goes against the idea of God granting prayers. That's true. Therefore either God does not have a plan or God does not answer prayers, or God does not do either. Where does this prove that He does not exist?

Understand religious delusion (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i7.htm)

This one is a thinly veiled bandwagon argument. If enough people think something is false, it must be false. This is obviously logically spurious. Towards the end, the author reasserts once more that prayer doesn't work. It doesn't disprove god any more than last time.

Think about Near Death Experiences (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i8.htm)

Okay so this one doesn't even try to disprove God. All it says is that Near Death Experiences aren't supernatural. Nice.

Understand ambiguity (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i9.htm)

Prayers again. They don't work. Thank you for that.

Watch the offering plate (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i10.htm)

Churches don't get money given to them by God in response to prayers! Therefore God is Imaginary! Wait...I've heard this argument before...

Notice that there is no scientific evidenc (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i11.htm)
See the magic (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i12.htm)

Sorry author, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Take a look at slavery (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i13.htm)

Let me actually just grab a quote for this one. "Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, your common sense should be telling you that God is imaginary."

...huh.

Examine Jesus' miracles (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i14.htm)
Examine Jesus' resurrection (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i15.htm)

Absence of evidence again. Hmm I'm sensing a pattern here.

Contemplate the contradictions (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i16.htm)

People condradict themselves, but this is not evidence against God

Think about Leprechauns (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i17.htm)

"There is absolutely no evidence indicating that God exists. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that God does not exist. Therefore we can conclusively say that God is imaginary."

Well firstly, there is actually no empirical evidence that God does not exists. Secondly, this is an extremely weak argument. Consider my absence form these boards. There was no evidence to you that I existed, and all of the available evidence pointed to my non-existance. Clearly, however, I do.

Imagine heaven (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i18.htm)

The christian afterlife sounds a bit wacky to me. Therefore the universe must not have a creator.

Not logical.

Notice that you ignore Jesus (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i19.htm)

You don't listen to jesus! Therefore God does not exist! Please don't examine my logic!

Notice your church (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i20.htm)

NEITHER DO CHURCHES! FURTHER PROOF!

Understand Jesus' core message (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i21.htm)

The bible's self contradictions, again, are not evidence of God's nonexistance.

Count all the people God wants to murder (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i22.htm)

The bible says God wants you to kill people who ignore your religion. You don't do this. Therefore God does not exist?

Listen to the Doxology (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i23.htm)

This argument says that if all blessings came from God, they would be evenly distributed. Even ignoring how ridiculous this is, how does it disprove God?

Ask why religion causes so many problems (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i24.htm)

Religion causes problems, therefore God does not exist? The author continues to beat around the bush, not offering any real evidence and merely bashing the idea of religion.

Understand evolution and abiogenesis (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i25.htm)

This is a pretty standard anti-God argument, but doesn't really disprove God. Just because God likely didn't place the first cell on the planet manually (I say likely because actually, we don't KNOW either way) does not mean He does not exist.

Notice that the Bible's author is not "all-knowing" (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i26.htm)

I agree that God didn't write the bible. I don't however agree that whoever did was insane, or that this is evidence against God.

Actually llet me just say this now to save time. Listing things that God didn't do does not actually build a case against existance. That is a totally insane assumption to make.

Think about life after death (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i27.htm)

2 things: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for his soul arguments.

And even IF we don't have souls, in what way does that disprove God?

Notice how many gods you reject (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i28.htm)

This one is recycled from number 3: Historical Gods

Think about communion (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i29.htm)

The fact that some of the rituals of Christianity are wierd does not disprove God at all.

Examine God's sexism (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i30.htm)

This is Read The Bible and Think About Slavery again. Recycled arguments.

Understand that religion is superstition (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i31.htm)

Prayers again.

Talk to a theologian (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i32.htm)

The author is arguing that God didn't write the bible again. I feel like we are going in circles.

Contemplate the crucifixion (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i33.htm)

The bible is bizarre again.

Examine your health insurance policy (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i34.htm)

Prayers don't work again.

Notice Jesus' myopia (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i35.htm)

The bible is bizarre and self contradictory.

Realize that God is impossible (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i36.htm)

This one talks big, but actually is just another prayer one mixed with a bible one. So no new ground uncovered unfortunately.

Think about DNA (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i37.htm)

Another one that admits it does not refute God's existance.

Contemplate the divorce rate among Christians (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i38.htm)

Christians don't follow the bible. We have heard this before.

Realize that Jesus was a jer (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i39.htm)
Understand Christian motivations (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i40.htm)
Flip a coin (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i41.htm)
Listen when "God talks" (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i42.htm)
Realize that a "hidden God" is impossible (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i43.htm)
Think about a Christian housewife (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i44.htm)
Consider Noah's Ark (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i45.htm)
Ponder Pascal's Wager (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i46.htm)
Contemplate Creation (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i47.htm)

All of these are just repeating the same arguments he has already used but given as different examples.

Compare prayer to a lucky horseshoe (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i48.htm)
Look at who speaks for God (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i49.htm)
Ask Jesus to appear (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i50.htm)

And finishing off with 3 more arguments about prayer not working.

You should have noticed by now the pattern of repeating his arguments (which were sketchy at best to begin with). This is classic bulking up and is designed to make his arguments seem to have more weight despite their shocking logical inadequacy. I have seen far more convincing arguments here on these very boards. Stick to the good people here for convincing arguments. As far as I can see most of the vocal atheistic outlets on the net are just as bad as christian promotion groups.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 15th, 2009, 01:20 PM
God to see you back, Al. :icon_cool:

sudikics
March 15th, 2009, 04:57 PM
One point on the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence. In a scientific model, yes, the lack of evidence does not directly build up to evidence contradicting the claim. However, if the tests are repeats hundreds of times, and still no evidence is found, the argument against existence begins to build.

//my two bits

tagnostic
March 15th, 2009, 05:08 PM
Sciki, that caused pain to what few remaining brain cells I have
:icon_eek:

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 05:47 PM
One point on the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence. In a scientific model, yes, the lack of evidence does not directly build up to evidence contradicting the claim. However, if the tests are repeats hundreds of times, and still no evidence is found, the argument against existence begins to build.

//my two bits

Even so, It has to be said that this set of "proofs" is hardly convincing.

tagnostic
March 15th, 2009, 06:41 PM
at what point does a lack of evidence
become a convincing argument?
does proving there will always
be a lack of evidence prove
the Not theory, or is it a
schrodingers cat
XOR until tested?

Daruko
March 15th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Even so, It has to be said that this set of "proofs" is hardly convincing.

Agreed.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 15th, 2009, 06:46 PM
schrodingers cat
XOR until tested?

THIS!

Daruko
March 15th, 2009, 06:53 PM
And that, yes.

Perna de Pau
March 15th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Sam the Moderately Wize sent me a link: www.godisimaginary.com
It's a list of "proofs" that God is imaginary. Here they are, one by one, refuted.



While most of your comments are right, you have not refuted any claims.

The "list of proofs" would be more accurately described as "proofs that the christian god (or muslim, or jewish, or other) is imaginary" and what you developed was the idea that the fact of those gods being imaginary (which you seemed to accept) does not prove that there is no god at all.

If that is so, please let us know which god do you believe is not imaginary.

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 10:41 PM
In fact, what I have done (or tried to do I suppose) is establish that the proofs have not in any way built evidence against God's (any god's) existance, only the accuracy of people's impression of Him (or Her or Them)

In otherwords, nobody established that God is imaginary in the first place. How am I to logically refute something that has not been logically established?

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 15th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Just like how are we to refute that he does exist. Neither can be proven so grab a beer and enjoy life.

rmw
March 15th, 2009, 10:54 PM
Goofy, it seems you fall in the "don't know, don't care" category of agnostics--true?

Daruko
March 15th, 2009, 10:55 PM
Just like how are we to refute that he does exist. Neither can be proven so grab a beer and enjoy life.
Precisely.

Daruko
March 15th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Goofy, it seems you fall in the "don't know, don't care" category of agnostics--true?
While I agree with Goofy's last statement, I don't like being grouped into this category either. It presupposes thoughtlessness.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 15th, 2009, 10:56 PM
the "Don't know and Niether do you!" category

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 10:57 PM
I agree that we don't know, but I can't not care. The quest for understanding is the most noble undertaking of all

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 15th, 2009, 11:01 PM
That is true it is the most undertaking and the basis of this religion, But when you have searched and understand that you cannot understand something, then you move on. No matter how hard you try to understand it you never will, unless and outside force calls to you.

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 11:06 PM
The attitude that we are unable to understand the universe is the basis upon which myths and religions are built. Flimsy covers and poor logic are the symptoms of the search abandoned. Too many agnostics and atheists fall into this trap: do not allow yourself to waver!

Even if you reject faith, have it in yourself

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 15th, 2009, 11:15 PM
I have it is my self. My faith is that there maybe a God but all documents have been man made and have nothing to do with him. There is more the my belief structure but it will just sound like barfing up rainbows, lolipops, and logic.

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 11:39 PM
The attitude that we are unable to understand the universe is the basis upon which myths and religions are built. Flimsy covers and poor logic are the symptoms of the search abandoned. Too many agnostics and atheists fall into this trap: do not allow yourself to waver!

I do not think I will ever fully understand the Universe, despite being, to me, the most wonderful Thing. But I know I can understand it ever more, step by step, experience by experience, endlessly. But this is a (very (very)) long road.

sudikics
March 16th, 2009, 12:58 AM
Even so, It has to be said that this set of "proofs" is hardly convincing.
It is not a proof, as there are no proofs in science. But if a hypothesis not only lacks any evidence, but is unfalsifiable, cannot be tested, and makes no predictions, then the hypothesis should be dropped. (*cough string theory cough*)

Daruko
March 16th, 2009, 01:35 AM
(*cough string theory cough*)
:icon_lol:

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 03:37 AM
It is not a proof, as there are no proofs in science. But if a hypothesis not only lacks any evidence, but is unfalsifiable, cannot be tested, and makes no predictions, then the hypothesis should be dropped. (*cough string theory cough*)

According to you, is my idea that Science is "Our Best Educated Guess about how the Universe works" a fairly good description?

Al Farabi
March 16th, 2009, 04:38 AM
Well Hume, the great empiricist, would say that since we can't ever REALLY know anything about reality with certainty, the goal of science is to be able to describe our world in terms of our collective experience.

Regardless of what we cannot know, that which we define as the human heart is located in what we call the left side of what we consider the normal human torso. That is truth, and is the only kind that can ever be accepted by empirical methods (on which science is based).

Daruko
March 16th, 2009, 06:07 AM
Well Hume, the great empiricist, would say that since we can't ever REALLY know anything about reality with certainty, the goal of science is to be able to describe our world in terms of our collective experience.

Regardless of what we cannot know, that which we define as the human heart is located in what we call the left side of what we consider the normal human torso. That is truth, and is the only kind that can ever be accepted by empirical methods (on which science is based).
science isn't about meaning anyway

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 10:30 AM
science is the art of describing reality
in such a way that the collective
social conscious concurs
it is not per se correct

the wikipedia of reality
as percieved by the collective whole

djura
March 16th, 2009, 01:00 PM
Science is best guess of what something does when interacting with something else we know nothing about. But we can guess, and the more effort we put in understanding the way things work, the better guess we will make.
Fate and god in a religious sense are items we are to believe without ever pursuing the knowledge further. Maybe there is a higher being, god, father, creator, whatever out there, but sad truth is no one ever did any scientific research (at least not that I know of) about what god could actually be. Rather, scientists are divided into believers and nonbelievers, each of them trying to prove their standings based on what they believe and not what they know.
Throughout the history god has become a tool in the hands of those in power - pay taxes or god will get you, give to church or you'll burn in hell, live like we tell you to or god will be pissed off at you, and today what we have as a result is a bunch of fundamentalists blowing shit up in the name of "true" god. (I'm not talking Muslim only)
Even if he does exist, which I certainly drought, nobody cares any more, especially the "believers"

Daruko
March 16th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Bullshit. Science has nothing to say about "God" because there's nothing to be said. Anyone talking about "God" (unless they have some extraordinary evidence), whether it be existence of, nonexistence of, or whatever, is NOT doing science.

sudikics
March 16th, 2009, 05:34 PM
According to you, is my idea that Science is "Our Best Educated Guess about how the Universe works" a fairly good description?
when you were in second grade, did they ever give you a topic and have you create four lists of what you know, what you think you know, what you don't know, and what you want to know?

Science is built on the first list, makes advances with the second, gets material from the third, and is driven by the fourth.

Daruko
March 16th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Sciky, that description is fail.

Fallen Hero
March 16th, 2009, 11:06 PM
Firstly, without having time enough to read that whole site at the moment, I shall trust you to have not committed a straw man fallacy and agree completely with your analysis. Those arguments are quite worthless.

I agree that we don't know, but I can't not care. The quest for understanding is the most noble undertaking of all

You Sir, are possible my favourite person in the internet.

I think I have developped 2 levels of 'caring' the first being on the day-to-day fuctional level in THAT level I do not care. This means, it matter not to me whether or not there is a god, in relationship to my job, my pasttimes, etc. I do care to whether or not there is a god on a higher level, on the intellectual level.

The attitude that we are unable to understand the universe is the basis upon which myths and religions are built. Flimsy covers and poor logic are the symptoms of the search abandoned. Too many agnostics and atheists fall into this trap: do not allow yourself to waver!

Even if you reject faith, have it in yourself

QFT. This to me is one of the most vital things: Question everything and always.

Well Hume, the great empiricist, would say that since we can't ever REALLY know anything about reality with certainty, the goal of science is to be able to describe our world in terms of our collective experience.

Regardless of what we cannot know, that which we define as the human heart is located in what we call the left side of what we consider the normal human torso. That is truth, and is the only kind that can ever be accepted by empirical methods (on which science is based).

Hume was a wild read. As was Salmon's application of (I think Hume but possible Descartes). I also enjoyed visualizing the case of Justified True Belief dissapear behind the cut out barns as problem after problem arose.

Bullshit. Science has nothing to say about "God" because there's nothing to be said. Anyone talking about "God" (unless they have some extraordinary evidence), whether it be existence of, nonexistence of, or whatever, is NOT doing science.

Could one ever find evidence from the physical world to support the existence of a metaphysical one?

Daruko
March 16th, 2009, 11:35 PM
Execute: CopyPasta
Heidegger stressed that metaphysics does not distinguish between being and the existent. This is expressed in fact that metaphysics reduces being to the existent, but it does this unconsciously, because the existent is viewed as a thing. Being cannot be a thing and thus it is something "elusive" for metaphysical thinking. [I would add that this effect is more pronounced in the majority of western language based philosophy, as opposed to eastern]
-Igor D. Nevvajai
/copypasta

sam the moderately wize
March 23rd, 2009, 10:33 AM
The point of godisimaginary is to point out the fact that god doesn't do anything. He answers no prayers, does nothing to influence the world and there is no evidence to suggest he exists. The real argument is: what is the difference between a god who does not influence the world in any way and no god at all. If there is no difference, then why should we believe in any God? Wouldn't not believing require 1 less assumption and so be more likely to be true?

Not Impressed - you haven't refuted the main argument of the site...

Daruko
March 23rd, 2009, 03:03 PM
who are yuo addressing?

djura
March 24th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Bullshit. Science has nothing to say about "God" because there's nothing to be said. Anyone talking about "God" (unless they have some extraordinary evidence), whether it be existence of, nonexistence of, or whatever, is NOT doing science.

Couldn't agree more.


Guessing won't bring you far. If you just think without conducting any experiments, sooner or later you'll have to start making assumptions. You'll never figure out anything more than "I think, therefore I am" unless you put some effort into studying the world.


19'th century scientists thought physics had nothing much to offer them, and some predicted that within 10 years humanity will learn all there was to know regarding physical world. And then Einstein came along, and screwed up everyones predictions.
For huge amount of things we can only do experiments so many times, and statistically predict the outcome of next experiment. This goes to say, we still know wary little about wary nature of things, and "knowledge" we possess is based on guessing what the outcome of certain experiment will be.
And btw, Einstein didn't come up with e eq mc^2 by experimenting.

Al Farabi
March 24th, 2009, 11:15 PM
The point of godisimaginary is to point out the fact that god doesn't do anything. He answers no prayers, does nothing to influence the world and there is no evidence to suggest he exists. The real argument is: what is the difference between a god who does not influence the world in any way and no god at all. If there is no difference, then why should we believe in any God? Wouldn't not believing require 1 less assumption and so be more likely to be true?

Not Impressed - you haven't refuted the main argument of the site...

He does not interact with us, true. He does not interact with the world? Not established. He doesn't change things in a noticable way, but that hardly shows that he is imaginary.

I could theoretically interact with anyone I wanted, yet there are billions of people for whom my existance is completely undemonstrable. Does that make me nonexistant? Is that a strong case for my non-existance if you were talking to a room full of people who had never encoutered me?

sam the moderately wize
March 26th, 2009, 10:29 AM
What does he do then?

Assuming I had enough time and resources I would be able to find you from next to no information. I seriously doubt I would be able to find God. I could theoretically demonstrate your existence to anybody given the resorces to collect information about you. To start off with, I could show them this thread - not the most convincing evidence, but better than anything evidencing God. If, as godisimaginary suggests, God does nothing at all, he would be completely undemonstratable to anyone - much more so than you.

tagnostic
March 26th, 2009, 02:03 PM
He does not interact with us, true. He does not interact with the world? Not established. He doesn't change things in a noticable way, but that hardly shows that he is imaginary.

I could theoretically interact with anyone I wanted, yet there are billions of people for whom my existance is completely undemonstrable. Does that make me nonexistant? Is that a strong case for my non-existance if you were talking to a room full of people who had never encoutered me?

a difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference
ipso facto if there is a supreme being that doesn't have any noticable effect
it is irrelevant

djura
March 26th, 2009, 02:16 PM
I'm with you on this one Tag. Maybe there is a supreme being, but since all it does is nothing - who cares. Outside the scope of (non)existence, the relevant issue is whether or not such being would impact individuals life in regards to this particulars individuals beliefs. One could argue that fate it self is enough to influence someones behavior in a positive way. This may be true, although I'm often puzzled why this is. Shouldn't our own moral guidelines be enough, or we need to be afraid of something in order to keep in line...?

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 01:55 AM
What does he do then?

Assuming I had enough time and resources I would be able to find you from next to no information. I seriously doubt I would be able to find God. I could theoretically demonstrate your existence to anybody given the resorces to collect information about you. To start off with, I could show them this thread - not the most convincing evidence, but better than anything evidencing God. If, as godisimaginary suggests, God does nothing at all, he would be completely undemonstratable to anyone - much more so than you.

a difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference
ipso facto if there is a supreme being that doesn't have any noticable effect
it is irrelevant

I'm with you on this one Tag. Maybe there is a supreme being, but since all it does is nothing - who cares. Outside the scope of (non)existence, the relevant issue is whether or not such being would impact individuals life in regards to this particulars individuals beliefs. One could argue that fate it self is enough to influence someones behavior in a positive way. This may be true, although I'm often puzzled why this is. Shouldn't our own moral guidelines be enough, or we need to be afraid of something in order to keep in line...?

A few things:

1. My original point still holds: proving irrelevance is not proving non-existance.

2. Action that we do not directly experience is not non-action. Consider the bonds holding all of the atoms in your body together. In no way do you experience that directly, but it still is action, and without it, you could not exist.

3.Djura: All knowledge in itself in inactive. What scientific discovery has in itself changed anything? Science affects us through the understanding it gives us and what it allows us to do. Such is the case with all knowledge. It is unlikely that a given scientific experiment will directly affect most indiviuals even peripherally. Does that mean we should give up science?
The search for knowledge is valuable in and of itself, and discarding a line of inquirey entirely because we seem to just be tired of trying is, to be quite honest, a lack of integrity.

We have been searching for a unifying fundemental particle for years with no universally compelling results. Should we give up that search too? I mean how much does it affect the life of the individual? How much will it change our descision making process?

Now admittedly, the search for the truth about God is a much less materially rewarding one; even small scientific advances allow us to produce better, well, stuff, while theological, or logical advances toward understanding teh idea of God hold little gain for the non-intellectual, but does the lack of immediate material reward really indicate unimportance, or even nullity?

I think not.

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:24 AM
A few things:

1. My original point still holds: proving irrelevance is not proving non-existance.

irrelevance is irrelevance
therefore existance/non existance is irrelevant

2. Action that we do not directly experience is not non-action. Consider the bonds holding all of the atoms in your body together. In no way do you experience that directly, but it still is action, and without it, you could not exist.

a straw man argument, your postulating atomic theory and quantum physics that has not been defined, or proven

3.Djura: All knowledge in itself in inactive. What scientific discovery has in itself changed anything? Science affects us through the understanding it gives us and what it allows us to do. Such is the case with all knowledge. It is unlikely that a given scientific experiment will directly affect most indiviuals even peripherally. Does that mean we should give up science?
The search for knowledge is valuable in and of itself, and discarding a line of inquirey entirely because we seem to just be tired of trying is, to be quite honest, a lack of integrity.

the search for knowledge in and of itself is worthwhile, but never assume you have found it



Now admittedly, the search for the truth about God is a much less materially rewarding one; even small scientific advances allow us to produce better, well, stuff, while theological, or logical advances toward understanding teh idea of God hold little gain for the non-intellectual, but does the lack of immediate material reward really indicate unimportance, or even nullity?

I think not.

I have yet to see any material good in the search for a god
I have yet to see any social good in the search for a god
It looks alot like trying to find an an excuse for an existance that someone can't justify within themselves

(not you Al you question enough to be an agnostic, you just don't know it yet)

Daruko
March 27th, 2009, 02:28 AM
I love how everyone is an expert on quantum theory these days. :icon_lol:

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:30 AM
there are no experts on quantum theory
just a lot of theorists
if any body actually
knew, they would
not stay in this
continuum

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 27th, 2009, 02:30 AM
Well you can make it up and know one will know!

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:33 AM
that's the beauty of
religon
and
physics
since it can't be disproved, your right

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 27th, 2009, 02:35 AM
I am god! Disprove me!

Daruko
March 27th, 2009, 02:36 AM
that's the beauty of
religon
and
physics
since it can't be disproved, your right
Precisely my point. To my knowledge, I'm the only physics student on the board, and I don't think we have any actual physicists, and yet judging from the posts as of late, quite a few of us have that whole Quantum thing down to a tee.

I know I certainly don't.

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:37 AM
don't look at me
I'm still trying to keep the co2 in the beer when i fall asleep...

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 27th, 2009, 02:39 AM
I finished my basic engineering courses which included physics. The only theory I ever was an expert on was string and once you learn enough you start laughing until you cry.

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 02:41 AM
I get my string theory
from Fingus,
it's just as knotted
but easier to dispose of

sudikics
March 27th, 2009, 03:18 PM
Al Farabi:

Irrelevance may not be proof of non-existence, but it certainly suggests to it.

Let's say we can show that God is irrelevant in the universe, and that his existence affects the universe in no way, shape, or form than if he doesn't exist. We apply Ocaam's razor, and go on living our lives as if God doesn't exist.

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 07:15 PM
Al Farabi:

Irrelevance may not be proof of non-existence, but it certainly suggests to it.

Let's say we can show that God is irrelevant in the universe, and that his existence affects the universe in no way, shape, or form than if he doesn't exist. We apply Ocaam's razor, and go on living our lives as if God doesn't exist.

I'm not arguing that god is irrelevant to the universe, just to our basic sensory experience. Imagine that one photon in your example with the rock. As far as your personal sensory experience goes, there is no reason to believe that that photon exists; it is totally irrelevant to your sensory experience. Yet its interactions have a large effect.

Just as there is no compelling reason to believe in particular photons, but there is reason to try to establish the existance of 'photon' as a concept, there is no reason to believe in a particular god, there is still reason to investigate the existance of 'God' as a concept.

sudikics
March 27th, 2009, 07:42 PM
I'm not arguing that god is irrelevant to the universe, just to our basic sensory experience. Imagine that one photon in your example with the rock. As far as your personal sensory experience goes, there is no reason to believe that that photon exists; it is totally irrelevant to your sensory experience. Yet its interactions have a large effect.

Just as there is no compelling reason to believe in particular photons, but there is reason to try to establish the existance of 'photon' as a concept, there is no reason to believe in a particular god, there is still reason to investigate the existance of 'God' as a concept.
I mostly agree, but I would make a fine distinction: whether or not our personal senses can detect the photon is not the issue: we have tools which can detect the photon. We cannot detect the supernatural with natural devices; otherwise, the supernatural wouldn't be supernatural.

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I mostly agree, but I would make a fine distinction: whether or not our personal senses can detect the photon is not the issue: we have tools which can detect the photon. We cannot detect the supernatural with natural devices; otherwise, the supernatural wouldn't be supernatural.

Who says God has to be supernatural? Not me, certainly.

tagnostic
March 27th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I mostly agree, but I would make a fine distinction: whether or not our personal senses can detect the photon is not the issue: we have tools which can detect the photon. We cannot detect the supernatural with natural devices; otherwise, the supernatural wouldn't be supernatural.

but if we cannot detect it
how can we trust detector?

Who says God has to be supernatural? Not me, certainly.

here we go again
define supernatural,
and if he's not
then he's natural
ipso facto a part of nature
and therefore a created being
as part of the universe

(good morning Al)

rmw
March 27th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Who says God has to be supernatural? Not me, certainly.

Perhaps you don't define god as "supernatural," however, IMO, the various definitions and beliefs of god(s) seem to at least imply "supernaturalness." (Not sure if that's a real word.)

Al Farabi
March 27th, 2009, 09:12 PM
but if we cannot detect it
how can we trust detector?



here we go again
define supernatural,
and if he's not
then he's natural
ipso facto a part of nature
and therefore a created being
as part of the universe

(good morning Al)

Perhaps you don't define god as "supernatural," however, IMO, the various definitions and beliefs of god(s) seem to at least imply "supernaturalness." (Not sure if that's a real word.)

Alright lets go for a spin in the pantheist-mobile :D

What would you think if I were to assert that, far from being seperate from nature, God is that from which nature is derived? In other words, that God, in a very real sense, is nature, in that he is its root. What other definition of God do we need than that through which all exists and is expressed - that without which nothing could be?

sudikics
March 27th, 2009, 09:22 PM
Who says God has to be supernatural? Not me, certainly.
Maybe not you...
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being
but if we cannot detect it
how can we trust detector?
We have trust the axioms of mathematics and science first. We then can work forwards to verifying the accuracy of the machine, by cross-checking, calibration, double-blind testing, etc.

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 12:29 AM
hmmm
a god who is not supernatural
is strictly part of nature
but has no actual
effect

isn't that nature
in and of itself?

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 07:09 AM
hmmm
a god who is not supernatural
is strictly part of nature
but has no actual
effect

isn't that nature
in and of itself?

Not a god who is part of nature, a god that includes all of nature. And a god that has every effect. Nature is the expression of the action of God.

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 09:48 AM
then what precisley is the difference between nature and god?
if god is nature and the only affect he/it has are natural
then were right back to the irrelevancy and
postulating a difference that doesn't
make a difference and giving
it the label of God

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 06:34 PM
then what precisley is the difference between nature and god?
if god is nature and the only affect he/it has are natural
then were right back to the irrelevancy and
postulating a difference that doesn't
make a difference and giving
it the label of God

What is nature? One common definition is: a causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe ("the laws of nature," "nature has seen to it that men are stronger than women," etc.) However, the word 'nature' teds to imply a sort of vague, amorphous, disunity. A sort of everything-mixing-together-ness that I think is less and less plausible as modern science brings us closer and closer to understanding the universe as arising from the expression of different attributes held by a single type of thing.

What word can we give to a singular agent that is a causal agent creating and controlling the universe? I think we already have one.

God is not just nature as such. Nature is the expression of the essential essence of the basic substance of the universe: God.

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 06:53 PM
that was well said
solipsist but very well said
back to the basic question
why does the "cause" have
to be a sentient being?
if it "caused" everything
then ignored it,
what is your argument for its sentience?
then we get into the circular
what is the cause for the cause

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 07:13 PM
that was well said
solipsist but very well said
back to the basic question
why does the "cause" have
to be a sentient being?
if it "caused" everything
then ignored it,
what is your argument for its sentience?
then we get into the circular
what is the cause for the cause

I don't think it's solipsistic: it implies an objective reality (Substance or God) which we all are able to access and know through reason.

I think you are still miscontruing my conception of God:

Firstly, God is active in everything that ever happens; it's hardly a case of causing and then ignoring. God simply exists and acts in accordance to his essence, which gives rise to the phenomena we observe.

Additionally, asking if this conception of God is sentient is similar to asking if the universe itself is sentient and is not something that can really be established. Could a cell in your body establish that you were sentient?

Yiuel
March 28th, 2009, 07:17 PM
What is nature? One common definition is: a causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe ("the laws of nature," "nature has seen to it that men are stronger than women," etc.) However, the word 'nature' teds to imply a sort of vague, amorphous, disunity. A sort of everything-mixing-together-ness that I think is less and less plausible as modern science brings us closer and closer to understanding the universe as arising from the expression of different attributes held by a single type of thing.

What word can we give to a singular agent that is a causal agent creating and controlling the universe? I think we already have one.

God is not just nature as such. Nature is the expression of the essential essence of the basic substance of the universe: God.


It depends how you view it. Something I disagree with you is saying that we have come close to what the universe is made of. We sure have gone a long way from the macroscopic view we have with our senses, but in no way can we say for sure that we have achieved the bottom of it. Science and its methods cannot find the ultimate source, because it relies on the links between things (and ultimately, yourself as an anchor in all this), not on the things themselves. Science can only exhibit relations, not existences. (It can imply existence through relations, but this is merely an assumption nothing more.)

So, I do not think that we will ever, with science, arrive to the ultimate substance you are attempting to describe. We may, however, come to an ultimate link, linking all that is within the relations we have, but we will not have expressed the true shape behind what is. And this link, what is it? God? We may well give it that name, but that would be very anathema among a lot of God-fearing freaks. Why not just call it what it is, the link between all? Seems more than enough, the ultimate link that places us all together in a single Universe. Seems a lot better like that :)

Daruko
March 28th, 2009, 07:22 PM
*sigh* Causality causality. Somebody pass me a monad, would ya?

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 07:23 PM
It depends how you view it. Something I disagree with you is saying that we have come close to what the universe is made of. We sure have gone a long way from the macroscopic view we have with our senses, but in no way can we say for sure that we have achieved the bottom of it. Science and its methods cannot find the ultimate source, because it relies on the links between things (and ultimately, yourself as an anchor in all this), not on the things themselves. Science can only exhibit relations, not existences. (It can imply existence through relations, but this is merely an assumption nothing more.)

You must admit though that as science has progressed it has pointed more and more to an underlying unity. That was all I was saying.

So, I do not think that we will ever, with science, arrive to the ultimate substance you are attempting to describe. We may, however, come to an ultimate link, linking all that is within the relations we have, but we will not have expressed the true shape behind what is. And this link, what is it? God? We may well give it that name, but that would be very anathema among a lot of God-fearing freaks. Why not just call it what it is, the link between all? Seems more than enough, the ultimate link that places us all together in a single Universe. Seems a lot better like that :)

Doesn't God already sort of hold that definition? That which causes, that which allows existance, that which is equally immanent and true for every particle in the universe?

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 07:23 PM
hehehe
I think your playing word games
if he/it is natural and 'acting' in his essence
it has no effect on me,
if the universe is he/and he it
it's all one and why bother speculating
or giving him/it anthroporph attributes?
(which all religous scripture does, he basically doesn't like us)

gonna grab popcorn and brb
now the Yiuels here

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 07:24 PM
*sigh* Causality causality. Somebody pass me a monad, would ya?

I'm not really dealing with causality actually - at least, not any more than science presumes to.

Yiuel
March 28th, 2009, 09:23 PM
You must admit though that as science has progressed it has pointed more and more to an underlying unity. That was all I was saying.

Science has an axiom telling us the whole Universe is linked, that the Universe is indeed one and not multiple. If there is no relation, science cannot investigate it. So if existence had to be divided into two or more parts, Science, not having a link to it, couldn't investigate those other parts. Actually, without the axiom of "togetherness", science doesn't make any sense at all. So we haven't progressed towards unity, science implies it from the beginning.

(This implication comes from ourselves, as our knowledge derives from relations between our brain and our senses, and our senses and the outside world.)

Doesn't God already sort of hold that definition? That which causes, that which allows existance, that which is equally immanent and true for every particle in the universe?

Being linked does not imply causation. It only implies what Daruko expressed in one word : causality. Basically, relations between all the parts. I am linked (through obvious relations) to black holes, but I certainly am not their cause, and they are certainly not my own cause. Links are just the paths we use to relate with everything else.

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Science has an axiom telling us the whole Universe is linked, that the Universe is indeed one and not multiple. If there is no relation, science cannot investigate it. So if existence had to be divided into two or more parts, Science, not having a link to it, couldn't investigate those other parts. Actually, without the axiom of "togetherness", science doesn't make any sense at all. So we haven't progressed towards unity, science implies it from the beginning.

I'm not sure what your point was here. Are you saying that I'm right, science posits a unity which agrees with a pantheistic conception of God?



Being linked does not imply causation. It only implies what Daruko expressed in one word : causality. Basically, relations between all the parts. I am linked (through obvious relations) to black holes, but I certainly am not their cause, and they are certainly not my own cause. Links are just the paths we use to relate with everything else.


Okay firstly, Being linked does not imply causation. It only implies what Daruko expressed in one word : causality.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that a common link does not imply a causal relationship? Because If so, then I agree.

secondly, I am linked (through obvious relations) to black holes, but I certainly am not their cause, and they are certainly not my own cause.

This is obviously true, but does nto actually concern what I was getting at.

If all phenomena can be boiled down to the action of a fundemental universal substance, then it is simply logical to assert that, ultimately, there is only one cause, to which all others are subordinate. The action of this fundemental base is that from which all other action stems.

Daruko
March 29th, 2009, 02:13 AM
If all phenomena can be boiled down...
FAIL

Al Farabi
March 29th, 2009, 04:31 AM
FAIL

Eloquent. I know I'm convinced.

'Boiled down to' is an expression meaning 'reduced to,' referencing a logical progression, by the way, if anyone was confused.

Daruko
March 29th, 2009, 06:20 AM
I don't have the energy to correct all your scientific and philosophical misconceptions in depth. No one with any merit has taken monads or fundamental building blocks srsly for almost a century. It just seems like you should really do some homework for some very classic philosophical and scientific problems before jumping to such wild-eyed speculation.

You are fishing for evidence to support your beliefs. Chances are, you'll find it everywhere you look. fnord.

If it would satisfy you, I could just play Deepok Chapra. I'm sure his science works quite well for this sorta thing.

Al Farabi
March 29th, 2009, 06:46 AM
I don't have the energy to correct all your scientific and philosophical misconceptions in depth. No one with any merit has taken monads or fundamental building blocks srsly for almost a century. It just seems like you should really do some homework for some very classic philosophical and scientific problems before jumping to such wild-eyed speculation.

You are fishing for evidence to support your beliefs. Chances are, you'll find it everywhere you look. fnord.

If it would satisfy you, I could just play Deepok Chapra. I'm sure his science works quite well for this sorta thing.

Hmm.

How about Hawking's The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe? Or maybe you have heard of String theory? Or Preon theory?

A lot of modern physics actually is focused on the reduction of our current particle zoo to a single species, as well as the unification of the forces into a single one.

Sorry Daruko, but you are just plain wrong.

Besides that, you have yet to bring to the table any counterarguments whatsoever. All you have offered so far have been childish ad hominem attacks, ludicrous grandstanding, and shallow and desperate seeming insults. If you have nothing constructive to bring to the conversation then you have no reason to post. Do I attack you or your beliefs? No, I simply give rational arguments for my own while you continuously try to escalate it into a flame war with clearly unresearched responses.

Can we please be adults here?

Daruko
March 29th, 2009, 05:28 PM
Hmm.

How about Hawking's The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe?
So, you read a layman's guide to science written by a big named determinist, and now you think your a physicist. Okay. +5 crackpot pts for you.

Or maybe you have heard of String theory? Or Preon theory?
:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:
Yes. Your point? A theory in search of a phenomena to apply it to is a doomed theory.

Also. Put on a fraggin' helmet.

Sorry Daruko, but you are just plain wrong.
This statement is meaningless. I'm not the one spewing pseudo-science. You have yet to show anything reasonable, in accord with your "logical" worldview.

Besides that, you have yet to bring to the table any counterarguments whatsoever.
I have, actually. You ignore my points, and focus on the butthurt from my jokes.

All you have offered so far have been childish ad hominem attacks,
Will yuo quit your fucking whining.

ludicrous grandstanding,
How ludicrous of me!

and shallow and desperate seeming insults.
this made me http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll212/darukomakaruto/roglol.gif

If you have nothing constructive to bring to the conversation then you have no reason to post.
How about for deconstructive reasons?

Do I attack you or your beliefs?
Yes you have. Repeatedly.

No, I simply give rational arguments for my own while you continuously try to escalate it into a flame war with clearly unresearched responses.
You consider your arguments clearly researched? :icon_eek:

Can we please be adults here?
As soon as you stop crying like a child.

Daruko
March 29th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Also, if you want to sit and debate these ideas srsly, I'd suggest you start by establishing materialistic monism, since that seems to be what you subscribe to.

Al Farabi
March 29th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Also, if you want to sit and debate these ideas srsly, I'd suggest you start by establishing materialistic monism, since that seems to be what you subscribe to.

Alright, I will! It will take a while to get all of this out, but I think that's good. I'll put the first leg up now, and we can talk about it if anyone has questions, and then I'll continue tomorrow. Today we establish that there are no two similar substances.

Material monism through reason:

Definitions:
1. By substance I mean that which is in itself and not concieved through anything but itself; thaat iss, the conception of which does not require or involve the conception of anything else. A thing that is not anything else.

2. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect percieves as constituting essence. "Thingness," if you will.

3. By mode, I mean the affectation of substance; that which is in and concieved through something else. Mode is how a thing exists in the world.


Axioms:
1. All things are in themselves or in something else; that is, existant things either exist independently or dependently.

2. Knowledge and understanding the effect depends on the knowledge and understanding of the cause.

3. Things that have nothing in common can't be understood through each other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other

4. A true idea agrees with that of which it is the idea.

Prop 1:
Substance is by nature prior to its affectations

Proof:

Defs 1 and 3.

Prop 2:
Two substances with different attributes have nothing in common.

Proof:

Evident through Def 1. Each substance must be in itself and be concieved through itself; the conception of one does nto involve the conception of the other.

Prop 3:
When things have nothing in common, there can be no causal relationship.

Proof:

If things have nothing in common, (Ax 3) they cannot be understood through one another, and so (Ax 2) one cannot be the cause of the other.

Prop 4:
Two or more distinct things are distinguished by either differences in attributes or differences in affectations (modes) of the substances.

Proof:

All things that are, are either in themselves or in something else (Ax 1); that is (Defs 2 and 3), nothing exists externally to the intellect except substances and their affectations. Therefore there can be nothing external to the intellect through which several things can be distinguished from one another apart from substances or (the same thing) (Def 2) the attributes and affectations (modes) of substances.

Prop 5:
In the universe there cannot be 2 substances of the same nature (attribute).

Proof:

If there were two such things, they would have to be distinguished by either attributes or aaffectations (Pr 4). If they are distinguished by attribute, then the proposition holds. If they are distinguished by a difference of affectations, then, since substance is prior to its affectations (Pr 1), disregarding therefore its affectations and considering the substance itself, that is (Def 1 and Ax 4) considering it actually, it cannot be concieved as distinguishable from another substance. That is (Pr 4), there can only be one such substance.

Tomorrow (or sooner if I feel like it) we add more defs and more axioms and get to the complex stuff.

How are we feeling so far?

tagnostic
March 29th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Alright, I will! It will take a while to get all of this out, but I think that's good. I'll put the first leg up now, and we can talk about it if anyone has questions, and then I'll continue tomorrow. Today we establish that there are no two similar substances.

Material monism through reason:

Definitions:
1. By substance I mean that which is in itself and not concieved through anything but itself; thaat iss, the conception of which does not require or involve the conception of anything else. A thing that is not anything else.

so far so good

2. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect percieves as constituting essence. "Thingness," if you will.

a little aristotlian, but still not clear

3. By mode, I mean the affectation of substance; that which is in and concieved through something else. Mode is how a thing exists in the world.

this would be the
subjective perception?



Axioms:
1. All things are in themselves or in something else; that is, existant things either exist independently or dependently.

it is what it is
until you can prove otherwise
concur


2. Knowledge and understanding the effect depends on the knowledge and understanding of the cause.

can concur
but don't know where your going there

3. Things that have nothing in common can't be understood through each other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other

ramen or varelse?

4. A true idea agrees with that of which it is the idea.

too circular

Prop 1:
Substance is by nature prior to its affectations

requires a priori sentience to have affectations
Proof:

[/I]Defs 1 and 3.

disputed points
uncitable :icon_eek:

Prop 2:
Two substances with different attributes have nothing in common.

Proof:

Evident through Def 1. Each substance must be in itself and be concieved through itself; the conception of one does nto involve the conception of the other.

will dispute
I will go with prop 2 to a point
but when you go into the proof
your ascribing sentience or a sense of being
to every particle of the universe,
at what point do they become self aware?
is an atom of H in my body aware of its part in the whole?



Prop 3:
When things have nothing in common, there can be no causal relationship.

define nothing in common,
physical, intellectual
where are we going here?

back to Ramen or Varelse

Proof:

If things have nothing in common, (Ax 3) they cannot be understood through one another,

and so (Ax 2) one cannot be the cause of the other.
whoa,
where did cause come in?


Prop 4:
Two or more distinct things are distinguished by either differences in attributes or differences in affectations (modes) of the substances.

will concur with
undefined points of affectations (mode)

Proof:

All things that are, are either in themselves or in something else (Ax 1); that is (Defs 2 and 3), nothing exists externally to the intellect except substances and their affectations. Therefore there can be nothing external to the intellect through which several things can be distinguished from one another apart from substances or (the same thing) (Def 2) the attributes and affectations (modes) of substances.


your going Descartes' on me here


Prop 5:
In the universe there cannot be 2 substances of the same nature (attribute).

Proof:

If there were two such things, they would have to be distinguished by either attributes or aaffectations (Pr 4). If they are distinguished by attribute, then the proposition holds. If they are distinguished by a difference of affectations, then, since substance is prior to its affectations (Pr 1), disregarding therefore its affectations and considering the substance itself, that is (Def 1 and Ax 4) considering it actually, it cannot be concieved as distinguishable from another substance. That is (Pr 4), there can only be one such substance.

Tomorrow (or sooner if I feel like it) we add more defs and more axioms and get to the complex stuff.

How are we feeling so far?

big fun
see ya in the morning

Al Farabi
March 29th, 2009, 08:28 PM
a little aristotlian, bt still not clear
Atribute is what makes a thing what it is. This is superficially similar to the idea of a 'form' (though I don't ascribe to a form-based relity). What makes a chair a chair? Not the materials or colour or shape, but a certain chair-ness.

I will explore atribute in more detail soon.


this would be the
subjective perception?

Pretty much, or if you want to be more precise, that which we percieve.

ramen or varelse?

Dunno what this means.


too circular

What I mean by that is that atrue idea is an idea that corresponds with reality.


requires a priori sentience to have affectations
[quote}
Proof:

Defs 1 and 3.

disputed points
uncitable :icon_eek:


I am not dealing with sentience whatsoever. By afectations I mean sensible features or, (Def 3) Modes.

And Defs 1 and 3 I don't think are disputed (at least not by you...) and in any case, all I claim is that my conclusions follow from my definitions (which I am prepared to defend)

will dispute
I will go with prop 2 to a point
but when you go into the proof
your ascribing sentience or a sense of being
to every particle of the universe,
at what point do they become self aware?
is an atom of H in my body aware of its part in the whole?

Again, I am not dealing with sentience in any way. I am simply saying that the mental conception of one does not involve the mental conception of the other.
For example, To concieve completely of a wax statue you must concieve of wax. To concieve of wax you must concieve of wax molecules. To concieve of molecules you must concieve of atoms, etc etc. None of these are substances because to concieve of them you must concieve of something else. They exist in or through another thing. Substance is something for which this is not true.



define nothing in common,
physical, intellectual
where are we going here?

back to Ramen or Varelse

By nothing I mean nothing.


whoa,
where did cause come in?

In axiom 2 actually.

Let me rephrase this one. By fully understanding a cause, we fully understand the effect. If total understanding of one thing does not involve the understanding of another, than the first thing is not the cause of the second. If full understanding of the second thing does not involve the understanding of the first, than there is no causal connection there either.
Therefore, if two things cannot be understood through each other, they are not causally linked.

tagnostic
March 29th, 2009, 08:38 PM
sorry, about the reference,
refers to Orson Scott Card
series of books
Ender's Game, is the first
in which he postulates
3 levels of communication

those that we share a communcation form with
those that we can learn to communicate with
and those that are so different in reality perception that communication is impossible

ramen are the second
varelse the 3d

Al Farabi
March 29th, 2009, 08:48 PM
sorry, about the reference,
refers to Orson Scott Card
series of books
Ender's Game, is the first
in which he postulates
3 levels of communication

those that we share a communcation form with
those that we can learn to communicate with
and those that are so different in reality perception that communication is impossible

ramen are the second
varelse the 3d

Ah. Well I'm not really dealing with sentient beings or communication, just conception (not in the biological sense, in the sense of creating concepts). Concieving of something, even to concieve of it perfectly and absolutely completely, does not involve concieving of anything that has nothing in common with it.

tagnostic
March 30th, 2009, 01:29 AM
Ah. Well I'm not really dealing with sentient beings or communication,

lets leave pclamb out of it
hehehehe

just conception (not in the biological sense, in the sense of creating concepts). Concieving of something, even to concieve of it perfectly and absolutely completely, does not involve concieving of anything that has nothing in common with it.

ya lost me there
I'm not equating
conception with reality
i can concieve of alot of
things, that arent real

Al Farabi
March 30th, 2009, 01:51 AM
ya lost me there
I'm not equating
conception with reality
i can concieve of alot of
things, that arent real

I don't doubt it! All I'm trying to say is that there is no logical process through which you could go from concieving of one thing to concieving of something totally unrelated. If they have nothing in common, there is no link.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 30th, 2009, 09:40 AM
Hey Daruko, play nice.

Daruko
March 30th, 2009, 03:14 PM
Hey Daruko, play nice.
I'm always nice. :D

tagnostic
March 30th, 2009, 03:20 PM
I'm always nice. :D

ahh but
is 'nice'
perceptive, subjective or objective?

hehehehe

Daruko
March 30th, 2009, 03:21 PM
ahh but
is 'nice'
perceptive, subjective or objective?

hehehehe
contraceptive?

tagnostic
March 30th, 2009, 03:22 PM
rofl

win

Al Farabi
March 30th, 2009, 05:56 PM
Hey everyone. Today's installment is a bit short because I am super booked up today and these proofs are kinda time consuming. The two Propositions today use the same axioms and definitions already introduced, but there are more definitions and axioms on their way as well. Tomorrow is an epic one, so get ready. In the mean time, discuss!

Just to recap:

Material monism through reason:

Definitions:
1. By substance I mean that which is in itself and not concieved through anything but itself; thaat iss, the conception of which does not require or involve the conception of anything else. A thing that is not anything else.

2. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect percieves as constituting essence. "Thingness," if you will.

3. By mode, I mean the affectation of substance; that which is in and concieved through something else. Mode is how a thing exists in the world.


Axioms:
1. All things are in themselves or in something else; that is, existant things either exist independently or dependently.

2. Knowledge and understanding the effect depends on the knowledge and understanding of the cause.

3. Things that have nothing in common can't be understood through each other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other

4. A true idea agrees with that of which it is the idea.



Prop 6
One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proof

In the universe there cannot be two substances of the same attribute (Pr 5), that is (Pr 2) two substances with something in common. And so (Pr 3) one cannot be the cause of the other; that is, one cannot be produced by the other.

Corollary to Proof

It follows that therefore substance cannot be produced by anything but itself. In the universe there exists nothing buut substances and their affectations (as is evident from Ax 1, and Defs 1 and 3.) But, but Prop 6, it cannot be produced by another substance. Therefore substences cannot be produced by anything else whatsoever.

A second Proof

This can be proved simply through the absurdity of the contrary. If substance could be produced by something else, the knowledge of substance would depend on the knowledge of its cause (Ax 2), and so (Def 1) it would not be substance.

Prop 7
Existance belongs to the nature of substance.

Proof

Substance cannot be produced by anything else (Cor to Pr 6) and is therefore self-caused; that is to say, its essence necessarily involves existing (It cannot not exist).

Coming next time: Every substance is necessarily infinite!

I'l participate in the discussion while I work :D