Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:



Register | Forgot Password
MembersCalendarNew Posts ChatHelp
Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist. » Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.
Science vs God.

printPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last

Demonstration of why god doesn't exist.
Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:04 AM:
quote post
#61
Tisthammerw wrote:


The third category is something fundamentally different from matter; the nonphysical realm with entities capable of possessing minds and causing effects (e.g. the soul) without being determined by prior causes. What justification is there for this third category? The existence of free will, moral responsibility, and rationality. All three imply materialism (the belief that the physical, material world is all there is) is false.


I'm no materialist (I take no metaphysical positions) but really now?

Tisthammerw wrote:

I'll start with rationality. There are at least two logically possible ways a person could arrive at a belief. One way is through reasons a person freely chooses. Another is that mindless atoms moving in certain ways cause a person believe something. The former constitutes a rational basis, the other does not. If materialism is true, the perception that we arrive at beliefs via rational thinking is an illusion; it is instead mindless chemical reactions that determine what we believe. As British biologist J.B.S. Haldane put it, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true....And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

Materialism not only undermines rationality, it also undermines itself.



And this is your justification? rolling eyes

For someone who seems pretty well read, your silly reasoning is surprizing. raised eyebrow

This is like a creationist dichotomy I once heard, something around the lines of "there are two positions, either god personally designed all live, or some rocks gave birth to a cat." Yes... quite.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:16 AM:
quote post
#62
Wosret wrote:


Physical laws are not tautologies however. It is possible for us to be wrong about how the universe operates, e.g. Newtonian mechanics gave way to Einstein's relativity.


Both mathematical laws and proofs are tautological, they depend on how the terms are defined. They work by taking the assumption that the laws are accurate and true, and then going from there to create abstractions and formulas that can be proven given the way the rules of mathematics and logic work and the assumptions that the laws are true and accurate.


It is true that mathematical laws and proofs are tautological. But I was speaking of physical laws. Physical laws are not tautological. They depend on empirical confirmation (because there are a number of possible mathematical patterns the universe could behave in) and some philosophical assumptions (such as the uniformity of nature).


As for what you say before this, that merely stems from your desire for the laws of physics to exist independently of people creating them. This is a whole other issue all together, I disagree that they are anything other than human made, and have had extremely lengthy conversations about this already, and do not feel like having another (especially with you).


What then is your position exactly? Do you not believe there exists a real, physical world out there independent of human beings? For instance, if there were no human observers, would the sun cease its nuclear fusion because the laws of physics no longer existed? (Note in this context I am merely referring to the physical regularities, not the written/spoken statements that describe them.) I agree that laws (in the sense of being phenomenological theories) are human made in the sense that theories are human constructions. But is your position stronger than this? Banning the existence of the physical world and its events in the absence of human observers?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:22 AM:
quote post
#63
Tisthammerw wrote:


It is true that mathematical laws and proofs are tautological. But I was speaking of physical laws. Physical laws are not tautological. They depend on empirical confirmation (because there are a number of possible mathematical patterns the universe could behave in) and some philosophical assumptions (such as the uniformity of nature).


Well that was my original claim if you were to look. Also, I do realise this, however, there are no laws in natural science, only formal science. So this is irrelevent. Physical laws, as mathematical abstractions are tautological. Theories of physics in natural science, are not laws, they are theories.

Tisthammerw wrote:


What then is your position exactly? Do you not believe there exists a real, physical world out there independent of human beings? For instance, if there were no human observers, would the sun cease its nuclear fusion because the laws of physics no longer existed? (Note in this context I am merely referring to the physical regularities, not the written/spoken statements that describe them.) I agree that laws (in the sense of being phenomenological theories) are human made in the sense that theories are human constructions. But is your position stronger than this? Banning the existence of the physical world and its events in the absence of human observers?


What did I just say? confused

I am not willing to discuss my position, and I bracketed "especially with you" which should have implied to you that I don't feel like having a lengthy discussion about it with anyone at all, and even if I did, it would not be with you. Especially being that it is irrelevent to what I was saying.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:26 AM:
quote post
#64
Wosret wrote:


I'll start with rationality. There are at least two logically possible ways a person could arrive at a belief. One way is through reasons a person freely chooses. Another is that mindless atoms moving in certain ways cause a person believe something. The former constitutes a rational basis, the other does not. If materialism is true, the perception that we arrive at beliefs via rational thinking is an illusion; it is instead mindless chemical reactions that determine what we believe. As British biologist J.B.S. Haldane put it, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true....And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

Materialism not only undermines rationality, it also undermines itself.


And this is your justification? rolling eyes


In this particular instance, yes.



For someone who seems pretty well read, your silly reasoning is surprizing. raised eyebrow


I notice you didn't provide even the remotest of justification for the claim that my reasoning is "silly." I don't suppose it's because your claim is groundless?

If on the other hand you do have justification for your claim, I would really like to see it. Otherwise it seems that materialism really does undermine rationality.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:31 AM:
quote post
#65
Tisthammerw wrote:


Otherwise it seems that materialism really does undermine rationality.


I like this, it reminds me of a bit by Dougle Adams. "it seems" or "it turns out" is a great way to assert something and make it sound like it really is true. Far better than "they say" or "I've heard" it gives the impression that not only has it been shown, or demonstrated, but it implies that you had a hand in it yourself. Quite nice really.

Ludicrous assertions require no rebuttal. They cannot be reduced to the absurd, they are already there.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:33 AM:
quote post
#66
Wosret wrote:


It is true that mathematical laws and proofs are tautological. But I was speaking of physical laws. Physical laws are not tautological. They depend on empirical confirmation (because there are a number of possible mathematical patterns the universe could behave in) and some philosophical assumptions (such as the uniformity of nature).


Well that was my original claim if you were to look.


Your position isn't always clear however. Just recently for instance you said, "Physical laws, as mathematical abstractions are tautological." You'd have to mean something entirely from what I've interpreted. Physical laws are often mathematical formulas, but these formulas are not necessarily tautological (they could indeed be wrong about how the universe operates; the formulas are not simply true by definition).


Also, I do realise this, however, there are no laws in natural science, only formal science.


What are your definitions of “formal science” and “natural science” and how are they different from each other?


What did I just say? confused

I am not willing to discuss my position, and I bracketed "especially with you" which should have implied to you that I don't feel like having a lengthy discussion about it with anyone at all


I didn't ask you for a lengthy discussion on your position, I just asked you what your position was. Sheesh.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:36 AM:
quote post
#67
Tisthammerw wrote:



Your position isn't always clear however. Just recently for instance you said, "Physical laws, as mathematical abstractions are tautological." You'd have to mean something entirely from what I've interpreted. Physical laws are often mathematical formulas, but these formulas are not necessarily tautological (they could indeed be wrong about how the universe operates; the formulas are not simply true by definition).



What are your definitions of “formal science” and “natural science” and how are they different from each other?




I guess you aren't as well read as I had assumed. shocked
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:39 AM:
quote post
#68
To recap from post #59:

Tisthammerw wrote:

I'll start with rationality. There are at least two logically possible ways a person could arrive at a belief. One way is through reasons a person freely chooses. Another is that mindless atoms moving in certain ways cause a person believe something. The former constitutes a rational basis, the other does not. If materialism is true, the perception that we arrive at beliefs via rational thinking is an illusion; it is instead mindless chemical reactions that determine what we believe. As British biologist J.B.S. Haldane put it, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true....And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

Materialism not only undermines rationality, it also undermines itself.


And now for the post.

Wosret wrote:


Otherwise it seems that materialism really does undermine rationality.


I like this, it reminds me of a bit by Dougle Adams. "it seems" or "it turns out" is a great way to assert something and make it sound like it really is true.


I still see no intellectual objection to my argument. Would I be right in assuming you have none?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 890
Posted 01/12/08 - 11:50 AM:
quote post
#69
Wosret wrote:

I guess you aren't as well read as I had assumed. shocked


I asked you for your definitions, not those of reputable books (as the dictionary). You said that "there are no laws in natural science" but for this to be true it seems that my definition (and that provided in my dictionary) of "natural science" is not being used here. Hence, I asked you how you defined "natural science" and "formal science." Or perhaps you are defining "law" differently? It seems a rather outrageous claim to say that there are no phenomenological theories in the natural sciences. I wondered if we were simply thinking of different definitions.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1900
Posted 01/12/08 - 12:08 PM:
quote post
#70
Tisthammerw wrote:


I asked you for your definitions, not those of reputable books (as the dictionary). You said that "there are no laws in natural science" but for this to be true it seems that my definition (and that provided in my dictionary) of "natural science" is not being used here. Hence, I asked you how you defined "natural science" and "formal science." Or perhaps you are defining "law" differently? It seems a rather outrageous claim to say that there are no phenomenological theories in the natural sciences. I wondered if we were simply thinking of different definitions.


rolling eyes

Are you not even reading what I've been saying. Almost everytime I mention laws I am doing so in reference to mathematics. In the mathematical sense of law, there are none in natural science, this is just another semantic twisting. As was what brought about my original comment, if you were to read you would see that my clarification was in how theory and proof are misused, and the differences between them. When people claim that science doesn't prove anything, they are just theories, they are making the mistake of mixing up one definition of proof with another, and one defintion of theory with another. Science does prove things in the only sense proof applies to the world, only not mathematically, but nothing offers that kind of proof excape a prior abstractions.

I refer to law and proof and say "in the mathematical sense" and you don't understand what I mean? You are claiming that laws in the mathematical sense exist in natural science?

My comment about you not being as well read as I had thought was in regards to your last sentence (should have removed the above part since it only applied to what I had said, and your (somehow) misunderstanding what I was saying, even though I was quite specific.) where you ask what the differece between formal and natural science is. It seems like a pretty basic thing one should know about science. I am by no means well read in science and I know.

Formal science demonstrates it's claims a prior, well natural sciences demonstrates it's claims through observation, rigourous investigation and testing its hypotheses. Basically, formal science is done on paper, natural science, actually looks at the world.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last



You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

© 2008

30 total queries
This page was created in 3.09 seconds
Memory used: 8260056 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 246 days, 5:17, load average: 2.40, 2.02, 1.95