Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

From #13779
(emphasis mine)

But that doesn’t make it wrong (the underlined bit). The question is, how do you establish something as being true, or not?

If I said 2+2=10, this would be deemed illogical under base 10, and as you say, regardless of who you are, your personal opinions, your “faith”, etc. However, in base 3 (I wrongly said base 5 last time I used this), the statement is true.

Sheesh , if you cannot get this simple arithmetic correct, the rest of your thinking is not something I would be resting any faith in!

In Base 3 the sum 2 + 2 equals 11.
That's 11.
2+1 equals 10 if you are at all interested.

The one I think that you are ever so painfully trying to provide an example for is Base 4.
In that base 2+2 equals 10.

So to recap,  in base 4,  2+2 equals 10.

Now carry on. I'll  not be reading your posts with any great confidence of seeing any great insights myself though!

[ekim]

A lemon is not a very good example as it can be detected by the senses of touch, taste and smell.  You need something exclusive to the sense of vision.

[torridon]

From #13779
(emphasis mine)

But that doesn’t make it wrong (the underlined bit). The question is, how do you establish something as being true, or not?

If I said 2+2=10, this would be deemed illogical under base 10, and as you say, regardless of who you are, your personal opinions, your “faith”, etc. However, in base 3 (I wrongly said base 5 last time I used this), the statement is true. Therefore what appeared to be false is no longer false if certain parameters are changed.

Changing the arithmetic base is not changing the constituent parameters of the situation, it is merely changing the language used to describe an underlying truth.  The underlying truth of a proposition is either true/false correct/incorrect irrespective of the language used to describe it, of which there are an infinite number.  You are merely changing the language to give the impression that truth is relative.

[torridon]

Let me illustrate in another way: How can someone who can see prove to a blind person (who has always been blind) what a lemon is? Does the fact that there is no way to do so mean the blind person should conclude that there is no such thing as a lemon? Does the blind person not have to accept by faith what they are being told, whilst having to take as evidence that which supports it, e.g. texture, taste, etc. How do they know that they aren’t being the victim of a hoax? Those who can see know because for them, the existence of a lemon is fact. To the blind person however, they are not in a position to verify that fact so have to accept it by faith. According to you, they shouldn’t take this approach, yet because we know that lemons exist, it would be seen as nonsensical for a blind person to conclude that lemons don’t exist because they cannot prove that lemons do exist.

This is about evidence, not logic. We cannot prove that lemons exist but we can ask, is there evidence in favour of lemons. A blind man cannot see lemons directly but he still has other lines of evidence - touch, smell, taste, to go on.  We cannot see black holes, but we have other lines of indirect evidence to support their existence.

[Gordon]

Let me illustrate in another way: How can someone who can see prove to a blind person (who has always been blind) what a lemon is?

They can describe the various non-visual characteristics of what a lemon is - I note you still seem addicted to using the term 'prove', which is fraught with problems.

Does the fact that there is no way to do so mean the blind person should conclude that there is no such thing as a lemon?

There are various ways to illustrate lemons to a blind person since their characteristics are not limited to the visual: else a picture of a lemon and a lemon would be the same thing. A lemon is no less a lemon to a blind person than it is to a sighted person.

Does the blind person not have to accept by faith what they are being told, whilst having to take as evidence that which supports it, e.g. texture, taste, etc. How do they know that they aren’t being the victim of a hoax?

They don't: we could all be stuck in the Matrix. Putting that option to one side a blind person is clearly able to acquire justified knowledge of lemons and the absence of sight does not negate them in determining the other properties of a lemon. To extend your hopeless argument a little, are we to conclude that someone without the sense of taste would be unable to apprehend a lemon either?

Those who can see know because for them, the existence of a lemon is fact.

If lemons exist then they exist for everyone, be they blind, red-haired or are fans of Pink Floyd, and determining their extant status is not limited to the visual realm.

To the blind person however, they are not in a position to verify that fact so have to accept it by faith.

Just plain wrong, for the reasons noted above. You are also fond of the term 'faith' when this is really about applied epistemology.

....they shouldn’t take this approach, yet because we know that lemons exist, it would be seen as nonsensical for a blind person to conclude that lemons don’t exist because they cannot prove that lemons do exist.

Leaving aside the use of 'prove' again, what is nonsensical here is your attempted argument - blind people are perfectly capable of acquiring justified knowledge of lemons without actually seeing them: just as they are perfectly capable of acquiring justified knowledge of other things they can't see, such as the guide dogs that some of them use.

Your reasoning is, as ever, utterly shambolic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

But that doesn’t make it wrong (the underlined bit). The question is, how do you establish something as being true, or not?

That's called a straw man: no-one says that that does make it wrong. What's actually being said is that your personal faith in "God" no more makes that god a fact for me than my personal faith in leprechauns makes leprechauns a fact for you. Faith may be personally satisfying, but in epistemic terms it's worthless.   

If I said 2+2=10, this would be deemed illogical under base 10, and as you say, regardless of who you are, your personal opinions, your “faith”, etc. However, in base 3 (I wrongly said base 5 last time I used this), the statement is true. Therefore what appeared to be false is no longer false if certain parameters are changed.

I've corrected you on this several times now, yet you repeat the mistake nonetheless. Why?

You attempted to argue that truths can be denied because a "worldview" prevents their recognition, and used a maths example to make the point.

I rebutted this in two ways:

First, regardless of the worldview of the enquirer the burden of proof is still with the proponent. If you think, "but that's my faith" is useful for that purpose you give your self two big problems, namely explaining why you think your faith is any more accurate for me than just guessing would be, and how you would propose to eliminate anyone else's faith in anything else also providing a truth for you that you must accept on the same basis.

Second, the only worldview here in any case is logic and your maths example relies on it nonetheless. All you've done is to tinker with the starting conditions, but the conclusions are perfectly logical in either case. That's called a category error. If you want to make an analogy with religious belief, then you need to find an example that verifiably provides a different truth using a method other than logic.           

Let me illustrate in another way: How can someone who can see prove to a blind person (who has always been blind) what a lemon is? Does the fact that there is no way to do so mean the blind person should conclude that there is no such thing as a lemon? Does the blind person not have to accept by faith what they are being told, whilst having to take as evidence that which supports it, e.g. texture, taste, etc. How do they know that they aren’t being the victim of a hoax? Those who can see know because for them, the existence of a lemon is fact. To the blind person however, they are not in a position to verify that fact so have to accept it by faith. According to you, they shouldn’t take this approach, yet because we know that lemons exist, it would be seen as nonsensical for a blind person to conclude that lemons don’t exist because they cannot prove that lemons do exist.

That's another category error and it fails in so many ways that it's hard to know where to begin. Briefly though:

How can someone who can see prove to a blind person (who has always been blind) what a lemon is?

By providing him with the other sensory inputs that demonstrate "lemon". The blind person may not be able to visualise it, but he'll have plenty else to go on.

Does the fact that there is no way to do so mean the blind person should conclude that there is no such thing as a lemon?

Even if none of the other methods were available, that's a basic mistake in reasoning you keep making. The blind person (assuming he's capable of rational thought) wouldn't think, "there's no such thing as a lemon". Rather he'd think, "this person has provided me with no reason to think that there is such a thing as a lemon", which is a very different matter and is analogous to a-theism.

Does the blind person not have to accept by faith what they are being told, whilst having to take as evidence that which supports it, e.g. texture, taste, etc.

Another category error. You're attempting to equate material characteristics (texture, taste etc) with a non-material deity. Try pixies or leprechauns or any other supernatural conjecture instead if you want to try this line.

How do they know that they aren’t being the victim of a hoax?

How do you?

Those who can see know because for them, the existence of a lemon is fact.

Continuance of the category error with some reification fallacy thrown in. Who are these people who "know" god, and how do they know in a way that equates with knowing "lemon"?

To the blind person however, they are not in a position to verify that fact so have to accept it by faith.

No they don't. They accept it because there's enough replacement sensory input to enable them to model "lemon". "Faith" on the other hand is what's needed when there's no evidence to support you - it's what gets you from guessing to assertion with no intervening logic to bridge the gap. 

According to you, they shouldn’t take this approach, yet because we know that lemons exist, it would be seen as nonsensical for a blind person to conclude that lemons don’t exist because they cannot prove that lemons do exist.

Yes, they shouldn't take this "approach" because it's irrelevant and epistemically worthless, and because your analogy fails before it even gets its trousers off in any case for the reasons I've explained. You can't simply assume "God" only some of us can't see it as analogous with the way that we understand "lemon" only a blind person can't see it.

Can you see now not only how desperately poor your thinking is, but why I stopped bothering to rebut in when you just repeat the same errors over again rather than address the rebuttals?

Anything?

[Nearly Sane]

A lemon is not a very good example as it can be detected by the senses of touch, taste and smell.  You need something exclusive to the sense of vision.

Yes, he should have used 'yellow' though there are some issues with that too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

That's called a straw man: no-one says that that does make it wrong. What's actually being said is that your personal faith in "God" no more makes that god a fact for me than my personal faith in leprechauns makes leprechauns a fact for you. Faith may be personally satisfying, but in epistemic terms it's worthless.   

I've corrected you on this several times now, yet you repeat the mistake nonetheless. Why?

You attempted to argue that truths can be denied because a "worldview" prevents their recognition, and used a maths example to make the point.

I rebutted this in two ways:

First, regardless of the worldview of the enquirer the burden of proof is still with the proponent. If you think, "but that's my faith" is useful for that purpose you give your self two big problems, namely explaining why you think your faith is any more accurate for me than just guessing would be, and how you would propose to eliminate anyone else's faith in anything else also providing a truth for you that you must accept on the same basis.

Second, the only worldview here in any case is logic and your maths example relies on it nonetheless. All you've done is to tinker with the starting conditions, but the conclusions are perfectly logical in either case. That's called a category error. If you want to make an analogy with religious belief, then you need to find an example that verifiably provides a different truth using a method other than logic.           

That's another category error and it fails in so many ways that it's hard to know where to begin. Briefly though:

By providing him with the other sensory inputs that demonstrate "lemon". The blind person may not be able to visualise it, but he'll plenty else to go on.

Even if none of the other methods were available, that's a basic mistake in reasoning you keep making. The blind person (assume he's capable of rational thought) wouldn't think, "there's no such thing as a lemon". Rather he'd think, "this person has provided me with no reason to think that there is such a thing as a lemon", which is a very different matter and is analogous to a-theism.

Another category error. You're attempting to equate material characteristics (texture, taste etc) with a non-material deity. Try pixies or leprechauns or any other supernatural something instead if you want to try this line.

How do you?

Continuance of the category error with some reification fallacy thrown in. Who are these people who "know" god, and how do they know in a qay that equates with knowing "lemon"?

No they don't. They accept it because there's enough replacement sensory input to enable them to model "lemon". "Faith" on the other hand is what's needed when there's no evidence to support you - it's what gets you from guessing to assertion with no intervening logic to bridge the gap. 

Yes, they shouldn't take this "approach" because it's irrelevant and epistemically worthless, and because your analogy fails before it even gets its trousers off in any case for the reasons I've explained. You can't simply assume "God" only some of us can't see it as analogous with the way that we understand "lemon" only a blind person can't see it.

Can you see now not only how desperately poor your thinking is, but why I stopped bothering to rebut in when you just repeat the same errors over again rather than address the rebuttals?

Anything?

I have faith that you don't believe in Leprechauns and so does the whole world.

That there are hoards of people going around asking for special consideration for faith is a Dawkinsian straw man which you appear to hang onto presumably for love of the Master.

I don't expect that kind of quarter from people like you but neither will I give it to people who are so sure of their faith they seem to believe they don't have one Yes Hillside I am talking about philosophical materialists like yourself.

[SusanDoris]

reading every post hereabouts as usual, I note a lack of response from Sword of the Spirit to my #13761

[Sassy]

Sword in the Spirit, have you not read the posts addressed to you on this thread where people waiting for answers?

[Sassy]

A lemon is not a very good example as it can be detected by the senses of touch, taste and smell.  You need something exclusive to the sense of vision.

Actually, the senses would have been more difficult considering that the sense of touch would not necessarily be effective on it's own. Limes are the same shape as a Lemon and both sometimes different in shape.
Our senses and smell and the things we use them for as based on the knowledge we amass over our life time.
If someone had never seen a lemon their senses would not even with sight tell them what it is.

[ekim]

Actually, the senses would have been more difficult considering that the sense of touch would not necessarily be effective on it's own. Limes are the same shape as a Lemon and both sometimes different in shape.
Our senses and smell and the things we use them for as based on the knowledge we amass over our life time.
If someone had never seen a lemon their senses would not even with sight tell them what it is.

The point, though, is one of communication between a sighted person and a blind person.  You can hand a lemon to a blind person and tell them it is called a lemon and they can use their other senses to form their own sensory image of it.  It would have been better to use something like 'rainbow' where the experience is confined to vision.

[Alan Burns]

Another category error. You're attempting to equate material characteristics (texture, taste etc) with a non-material deity. Try pixies or leprechauns or any other supernatural conjecture instead if you want to try this line.

But you are ignoring the sense which is the defining factor which separates us from other living creatures.  Every human being has been gifted with a spiritual sense which enables us to see beyond the limitations of our physical senses.  By limiting your reasoning to what can be detected by your physical senses you are ignoring the great gift of spiritual insight which has been aptly demonstrated by every civilised society in human history.  The fact that you can imagine the existence of leprechauns demonstrates your spiritual insight, but you still need to hone in on what its real purpose is - to see the truth and reason for our existence.

[torridon]

But you are ignoring the sense which is the defining factor which separates us from other living creatures.  Every human being has been gifted with a spiritual sense which enables us to see beyond the limitations of our physical senses.  By limiting your reasoning to what can be detected by your physical senses you are ignoring the great gift of spiritual insight which has been aptly demonstrated by every civilised society in human history.  The fact that you can imagine the existence of leprechauns demonstrates your spiritual insight, but you still need to hone in on what its real purpose is - to see the truth and reason for our existence.

I'd agree spirituality is a defining characteristic of our species, though not the only one, and probably not 'every human' is very spiritual.  I doubt psychopaths or people with severe autism are very spiritual for instance.  That we can imagine leprechauns, I would put down to imagination rather than spiritual insight.  I can also imagine purple polar bears but I wouldn't class that as a spiritual thing.

I also doubt the usefulness of 'spiritual insight' in resolving profound existential questions about the nature or 'reason' for our existence, if indeed there is one. Trouble is, spiritual insight is by its nature profoundly subjective and so is a poor vehicle for determining objective truths. Hence we see that spirituality of some sort is widespread throughout human history and culture, but its manifestations are as multifarious and diverse as are people. Spiritual experience therefore is something valid and meaningful for the individual but we cannot extrapolate to any single all-encompassing grandiose objective truth from it. To inch towards true-for-all objective truths requires objective methods, like science.

Merry Christmas to you 

[SusanDoris]

torridon

Interesting post as always. On another forum the question of 'why we are here' came up again yesterday, so I pointed out that there is clearly no reason, so the why question is unnecessary! A response from another poster was to express thanks for saying this!

[Alan Burns]

On another forum the question of 'why we are here' came up again yesterday, so I pointed out that there is clearly no reason, so the why question is unnecessary!

But a materialistic evolution process would be unlikely to allow such a question to even exist.  And can you just ponder for a minute where this question does exist?  Could it be just a pattern of electrons driven by the deterministic cause and effect events rooted in the lifeless big bang?  Or is it derived from our God given spirituality?

The reason for our existence is in fact very clearly stated in the divine revelations of scripture. Which is aptly summed up in my memory of the penny catechism:
God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

[Shaker]

 

[SusanDoris]

But a materialistic evolution process would be unlikely to allow ...

A process is not a thing, let alone a thing with any power to allow or not allow.

...   such a question to even exist.

Questions are formulated in the minds of humans who are the only animals to have language to do so.

And can you just ponder for a minute where this question does exist?

No pondering needed - it can exist, if that is the right word, only in human brains.

Could it be just a pattern of electrons driven by the deterministic cause and effect events rooted in the lifeless big bang?  Or is it derived from our God given spirituality?

That bit makes no sense!

The reason for our existence is in fact very clearly stated in the divine revelations of scripture. Which is aptly summed up in my memory of the penny catechism:
God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

So as we know all too well you prefer to believe those words against all the actual information we have about
the physical world.

[torridon]

But a materialistic evolution process would be unlikely to allow such a question to even exist.  And can you just ponder for a minute where this question does exist?  Could it be just a pattern of electrons driven by the deterministic cause and effect events rooted in the lifeless big bang?  Or is it derived from our God given spirituality?

The reason for our existence is in fact very clearly stated in the divine revelations of scripture. Which is aptly summed up in my memory of the penny catechism:
God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

Does Beethoven's Seventh Symphony exist ? I think it does because I've heard it lots of times. But if it exists, where is it, and how much does it weigh ?

The Darwin's bark spider can create intricate and enormous webs even reaching across rivers.  Where does the design for the web reside ?  Is it to be found in the 'patterns of electrons' in the spider's tiny brain, or is it derived from it's God given spirituality ?

[Alan Burns]

So as we know all too well you prefer to believe those words against all the actual information we have about the physical world.

But by their nature, our souls are not of this physical world.

[Shaker]

But by their nature, our souls are not of this physical world.

The assertion wagon is here everybody!

[Alan Burns]

Does Beethoven's Seventh Symphony exist ? I think it does because I've heard it lots of times. But if it exists, where is it, and how much does it weigh ?

The Darwin's bark spider can create intricate and enormous webs even reaching across rivers.  Where does the design for the web reside ?  Is it to be found in the 'patterns of electrons' in the spider's tiny brain, or is it derived from it's God given spirituality ?

But the symphony emanates from the human soul, and can only be perceived as a symphony by the soul.

A web is just a physical thing emanating from the natural instinctive behaviour of the spider.

[Shaker]

But the symphony emanates from the human soul brain, and can only be perceived as a symphony by the soul brain.

A little tweak to bring your words in line with reality. I'm sure you won't mind, Al.

[Gordon]

But by their nature, our souls are not of this physical world.

I'd have thought that 'nature' and 'souls' are odd bedfellows when in the same sentence.

[torridon]

But the symphony emanates from the human soul, and can only be perceived as a symphony by the soul.

A web is just a physical thing emanating from the natural instinctive behaviour of the spider.

You didn't answer : does Beethoven's Seventh exist and if so, where is it ?  Where does the design for the spider web reside ?