Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents

[Guest]

8 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

So... in other words you have no evidence. Cool story bro. I'll just go ahead and ignore you from here on out because you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion that is worthwhile.

I've been holding out on you; I do have some physical evidence I can provide.  I actually have the number eleven in a jar.  I can send it to you for analysis; you will need some supernatural litmus test strips.  But you'll have to promise to be very careful with it.  If you ruin the number eleven we will have to change the rules of football and craps.  Also, reality will cease to be comprehensible and may unravel altogether.  I should probably get postal insurance.  

[Cacti 191]

7 hours ago, RayDog said:

Numbers arise within a physical brain. They are not supernatural.

 

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Do numbers exist without man? Does math?

 

The bigger question is, are Mathematical Structures Invented or Discovered? This topic was discussed about a year ago by some of the same posters that are participating in the current discussion.

[softlynow 1783]

49 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

This is a remarkable statement. Good luck proving your hypothesis without philosophy (or, more accurately, employing it in ignorance).

Not really, since I didn't say philosophy is worthless in all endeavors. That position isn't viable, and would be against mountains of historical evidence.

Until all that is and occurs in existence is known, philosophy has a place. Like proponents of the supernatural, I lack the tools to conclusively prove my hypothesis, and am left with forms of persuasion to fill knowledge gaps.

[formermav43 4599]

10 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Not really, since I didn't say philosophy is worthless in all endeavors. That position isn't viable, and would be against mountains of historical evidence.

Until all that is and occurs in existence is known, philosophy has a place. Like proponents of the supernatural, I lack the tools to conclusively prove my hypothesis, and am left with forms of persuasion to fill knowledge gaps.

It goes further than that. In talking about proving a hypothesis as the only source of conclusive knowledge, you’re promoting an empiricist epistemology. That’s philosophy.

Edited July 16, 2018 by formermav43

[softlynow 1783]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

It goes further than that. In talking about proving a hypothesis as the only source of conclusive knowledge, you’re promoting an empiricist epistemology. That’s a philosophical position. 

And?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I've been holding out on you; I do have some physical evidence I can provide.  I actually have the number eleven in a jar.  I can send it to you for analysis; you will need some supernatural litmus test strips.  But you'll have to promise to be very careful with it.  If you ruin the number eleven we will have to change the rules of football and craps.  Also, reality will cease to be comprehensible and may unravel altogether.  I should probably get postal insurance.  

Lolz. +1 for humor. Numbers aren't evidence.

[David Dennison 18659]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I've been holding out on you; I do have some physical evidence I can provide.  I actually have the number eleven in a jar.  I can send it to you for analysis; you will need some supernatural litmus test strips.  But you'll have to promise to be very careful with it.  If you ruin the number eleven we will have to change the rules of football and craps.  Also, reality will cease to be comprehensible and may unravel altogether.  I should probably get postal insurance.  

While you might not be able to hold the man made symbol that represents the number eleven in a jar, you can hold the brain in a jar. You can study the human organ that allows for the very contemplation of eleven. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

While you might not be able to hold the man made symbol that represents the number eleven in a jar, you can hold the brain in a jar. You can study the human organ that allows for the very contemplation of eleven. 

Or collect eleven sticks, apples, keys, books - well some people might not go for the books, that might go against their religious (read:cult) indoctrination and would just burn them - , cups, rings, socks, really any item and they can be collected in any quantity... not just eleven. Eleven holds no special value other than it's a prime number and that it follows the tenth digit and proceeds the twelfth.

[hpslugga 4044]

Hate to rain on the insane parade of the "numbers are supernatural," but that's complete and utter horseshit that is so horribly ludicrous that it carries with it the stench of Kent Hovind.

Mathematics can exist without numbers, but it cannot be expressed by intelligent creatures without numbers. The actual names of the numbers themselves are merely cultural/linguistic expressions, but they're representative of tangible quantities that exist in the natural realm. Yeah, it's true that when I count "twelve" eggs in a box, a Spanish-speaking person calls that "doce huevos," but it's the same expression nonetheless, and again, it's representative of tangible quantities. Just because there isn't a literal, physical, natural "number 11" that we can see does not mean that it's a supernatural concept. That's a tremendous leap in logic that veers off from sanity entirely. It's the same reason that colors aren't supernatural either.

"Hey, I've got 5 oranges in this bag"

"You can't prove that! 5 is supernatural!"

Seriously? I mean if you can turn numbers supernatural, then there's nothing to stop you from labeling anything as supernatural.

Look at it this way: suppose there are two guys walking around and they see 12 rocks. One of them says "hey, there are 11 rocks." The other one says "no, there are 12 rocks." Guy A is wrong. He's not expressing a deeply held religious conviction, he's not expressing an opinion; he's expressing a misstatement of fact because he didn't count one of the rocks. Well if he's factually wrong about it, then that means there's a factually right answer, and if there's a factually right answer, that means it can be demonstrated. If it can be demonstrated, it by definition cannot be supernatural.

And none of that changes the fact that every intelligent human can identify 5 oranges or 12 eggs, nor does it change the fact that no intelligent human can physically see a magical, anthropomorphic immortal living on a different plane of existence that not only knows everything, but has a personal opinion about everything that occurs on planet Earth, and gets super angry when humankind (aka his so-called greatest "creation") veers from his likes/tends towards his dislikes.

The material difference between they who choose faith (which is the most dishonest root for a position that there is to take) and they who choose reason is that they who choose reason understand that they are not born to believe in a supernatural deity. The default position is known as the null set; not the mega-dishonest logical fallacy commonly referred to as "God of the Gaps." In other words, if you cannot give me a reason to believe you, I have no reason to believe you. Or to phrase it in the terms of Hitchens' Razor:

Positive claims require positive evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by hpslugga

[JBJ 3649]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:45 PM, RayDog said:

The Casimir effect is nothing but a subset of van der Waals forces. Van der Waals forces are a well established part of electromagnetic theory. The distance between charges in electric dipoles varies and oscillates in the presence of other dipoles.

I am not misinterpreting anything. Van der Waals forces exist and must be accounted for at all times.

Your argument is akin to saying that both the strong force and van der Waals forces exist and happen to have the same magnitude and achieve the same effect simultaneously.

My point is that only one of those forces is necessary to explain nuclear forces. Of the two possibilities, the van der Waals forces of standard electromagnetic theory is the simplest and it is impossible for them to not exist.

I consider strong force theory to be unnecessarily redundant.

Like I said, the mechanics matter.  You are applying mechanical properties that simply don't apply.  It's like trying to calculate the circumference of cylinders based on their heights.

A unification of an electro-strong force is intriguing, I just think you are tackling this ass-backwards.  Your starting point cannot be a Casimir approximation - that is designed to be a macroscopic calculation over certain shapes with certain properties.  The combination of VDW forces on gold atoms is not the same as nickel or aluminum or, markedly, hydrogen.  They aren't going to be same for nucleons, either.

You need to go back to the math underlying the math. You can't just extend certain mechanical properites from one application to the next.  From the top of my head: polarizability, dipole moment, and ionization (I assume the subatomic corollary for that would be decay energies) are going to be quite different in nucleons and gold atoms.  These will need to be re-worked for your subatomic application.

The good thing is that you may be able to produce a range of workable sets based on our limited knowledge of the EM properties of nucleons.  The bad news is that the NEDM is immeasurably small and theoretically zero, so your nuclear EM forces might not exist at all.  But being immeasurably small may also work in your favor, explaining why neutronium is unstable.

Edited July 16, 2018 by JBJ

[Guest]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

While you might not be able to hold the man made symbol that represents the number eleven in a jar, you can hold the brain in a jar. You can study the human organ that allows for the very contemplation of eleven. 

The number 11 and a brain that allows for the contemplation of the number 11 are not equivalents.  The human mind/brain also allows for the contemplation of gold, but a jar that contains a brain that thinks about gold is different from a jar that contains gold.

The only way your argument could be made meaningful is to also assert that numbers are ontologically dependent on brains.  But this is a very difficult claim to defend as it has numerous problems & obvious objections.

 

49 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Hate to rain on the insane parade of the "numbers are supernatural," but that's complete and utter horseshit that is so horribly ludicrous that it carries with it the stench of Kent Hovind.

Mathematics can exist without numbers, but it cannot be expressed by intelligent creatures without numbers. The actual names of the numbers themselves are merely cultural/linguistic expressions, but they're representative of tangible quantities that exist in the natural realm. Yeah, it's true that when I count "twelve" eggs in a box, a Spanish-speaking person calls that "doce huevos," but it's the same expression nonetheless, and again, it's representative of tangible quantities. Just because there isn't a literal, physical, natural "number 11" that we can see does not mean that it's a supernatural concept. That's a tremendous leap in logic that veers off from sanity entirely. It's the same reason that colors aren't supernatural either.

"Hey, I've got 5 oranges in this bag"

"You can't prove that! 5 is supernatural!"

Seriously? I mean if you can turn numbers supernatural, then there's nothing to stop you from labeling anything as supernatural.

Look at it this way: suppose there are two guys walking around and they see 12 rocks. One of them says "hey, there are 11 rocks." The other one says "no, there are 12 rocks." Guy A is wrong. He's not expressing a deeply held religious conviction, he's not expressing an opinion; he's expressing a misstatement of fact because he didn't count one of the rocks. Well if he's factually wrong about it, then that means there's a factually right answer, and if there's a factually right answer, that means it can be demonstrated. If it can be demonstrated, it by definition cannot be supernatural.

And none of that changes the fact that every intelligent human can identify 5 oranges or 12 eggs, nor does it change the fact that no intelligent human can physically see a magical, anthropomorphic immortal living on a different plane of existence that not only knows everything, but has a personal opinion about everything that occurs on planet Earth, and gets super angry when humankind (aka his so-called greatest "creation") veers from his likes/tends towards his dislikes.

The material difference between they who choose faith (which is the most dishonest root for a position that there is to take) and they who choose reason is that they who choose reason understand that they are not born to believe in a supernatural deity. The default position is known as the null set; not the mega-dishonest logical fallacy commonly referred to as "God of the Gaps." In other words, if you cannot give me a reason to believe you, I have no reason to believe you. Or to phrase it in the terms of Hitchens' Razor:

Positive claims require positive evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

I gave a very clear and simple argument for my claim.  Was it a valid argument?  If so, which of the premises is false?  It is an argument with four lines.  If it is so crazy then it should be easy to attack.  

I'm familiar with the god of the gaps argument and hitchens razor and most of the other flimsy new atheist rhetoric.  You may be interested to know that the god of the gaps argument was actually developed by a 19th century theist (and not by one of the awe-inspiring new atheist horsemen) to attack lower grade versions of theism.  Hitchens was best when he preached to the choir and not when his ideas were opened for scrutiny by others who've thought about them at any length.  This is one of the reasons why he did so poorly in a public debate with William Lane Craig according to most atheist observers.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 18659]

5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The number 11 and a brain that allows for the contemplation of the number 11 are not equivalents.  The human mind/brain also allows for the contemplation of gold, but a jar that contains a brain that thinks about gold is different from a jar that contains gold.

The only way your argument could be made meaningful is to also assert that numbers are ontologically dependent on brains.  But this is a very difficult claim to defend as it has numerous problems & obvious objections.

But it is a claim that is made by plenty of people who are much smarter than we are. "11" is a symbol created by man to represent something else that exists in nature.

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Just because there isn't a literal, physical, natural "number 11" that we can see does not mean that it's a supernatural concept.

This made me laugh.

[David Dennison 18659]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

This made me laugh.

So you're of the belief that symbols are supernatural.

And that's cool.

A lot of people disagree.

[yaqdum 182]

only truth i know is that when you live alone, everything is your fault, and when you don't, nothing is.

[JBJ 3649]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you're of the belief that symbols are supernatural.

And that's cool.

A lot of people disagree.

It made me laugh because he explicitly and specifically stated that there is no natural number 11 before he launched his argument to the opposite.

It's no use arguing with someone who doesn't understand the topic, I guess that would include "a lot of people."

[Anastasis 23394]

[Huckleberry 32703]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It made me laugh because he explicitly and specifically stated that there is no natural number 11 before he launched his argument to the opposite.

It's no use arguing with someone who doesn't understand the topic, I guess that would include "a lot of people."

Natural and supernatural are not exhaustive of all things. The longer a conversation or debate goes the higher the likelihood that words and terms will change meaning throughout.

Man-made items are neither natural nor supernatural, they are artificial.

[hpslugga 4044]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Natural and supernatural are not exhaustive of all things. The longer a conversation or debate goes the higher the likelihood that words and terms will change meaning throughout.

Man-made items are neither natural nor supernatural, they are artificial.

That this is so difficult for some to comprehend is...incomprehensible.

Seriously, a car isn’t natural either. That doesn’t make it supernatural.

Edited July 16, 2018 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4044]

19 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It made me laugh because he explicitly and specifically stated that there is no natural number 11 before he launched his argument to the opposite.

It's no use arguing with someone who doesn't understand the topic, I guess that would include "a lot of people."

I launched no such “opposite” argument. You knew better.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Natural and supernatural are not exhaustive of all things. The longer a conversation or debate goes the higher the likelihood that words and terms will change meaning throughout.

Man-made items are neither natural nor supernatural, they are artificial.

I agree that the longer a conversation or debate goes the higher the likelihood that words and terms will change meaning throughout.  But this problem can be avoided by giving explicit definition to terms.  I already gave an explicit definition for supernatural.  The terms can be defined as follows:

• An object is natural if and only if it is solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.
• An object is supernatural if it is not the case that it is natural.  

If we use these definitions then every object & item is either natural or supernatural by excluded middle.  The above definitions are typical of what is used in discussions on ontological materialism or physicalism.  An object is considered to be natural if it is composed of and a complete & comprehensive product of the natural world (the physical universe and the natural world/products of nature are used interchangeably in this context).   

Edited July 16, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 18659]

7 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I agree that the longer a conversation or debate goes the higher the likelihood that words and terms will change meaning throughout.  But this problem can be avoided by giving explicit definition to terms.  I already gave an explicit definition for supernatural.  The terms can be defined as follows:

• An object is natural if and only if it is solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.
• An object is supernatural if it is not the case that it is natural.  

If we use these definitions then every object & item is either natural or supernatural by excluded middle.  The above definitions are typical of what is used in discussions on ontological materialism or physicalism.  An object is considered to be natural if it is composed of and a complete & comprehensive product of the natural world (the physical universe and the natural world/products of nature are used interchangeably in this context).   

And if we use other definitions, we might reach different conclusions.

Philosophy is a wonderful exercise in asking questions that science tries to answer. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[Cacti 191]

47 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And if we use other definitions, we might reach different conclusions.

Out of curiosity, what different conclusions could be reached using other definitions? 

[David Dennison 18659]

3 minutes ago, Cacti said:

Out of curiosity, what different conclusions could be reached using other definitions? 

The conclusion that numbers are ontologically dependent on human brains.

Edited July 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[Cacti 191]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The conclusion that numbers are ontologically dependent on human brains.

That's a different conclusion but what "other" definition of natural vs. supernatural is used to arrive at that conclusion?

[Huckleberry 32703]

How about the dictionary definition?

Numbers are not beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. They do not transcend nature and do not seem to come from magic or a god. Those are some of the various dictionary definitions of supernatural.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Huckleberry

[David Dennison 18659]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

How about the dictionary definition?

Numbers are not beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. They do not transcend nature and do not seem to come from magic or a god. Those are some of the various dictionary definitions of supernatural.

Yep. That definition differs from Aphelion's "An object is supernatural if and only if it is not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe," and it would bring you to a different conclusion because that definition of the supernatural would not include numbers. 

His definition suits his argument, and that's the point. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[JBJ 3649]

The ontological definitions have been consistent all the way back to Plato. Trying to make this a semantic argument is a losing proposition.  The semantics are contained in both underlying axioms.

 

This is the problem posed:

If (1) only natural objects exist and (2) numbers do not exist naturally, then (3)?

Aleph can successfully turn any semantic argument against (2) back on (1). The definition has to be consistent across both for there to be any meaning.  You guys should instead be trying to solve for (3).

The obvious answer is (3) = numbers do not exist, which is a stance that can actually be argued.

Edited July 16, 2018 by JBJ

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

His definition makes it so any object you conjure up in your brain is supernatural, which means that if you conjure up the idea of God in your brain, the God must be supernatural and must exist.  Walla*, God is proven!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Yes, I know its voila, but I can't remember if I first saw it spelled that way here or some other board, so clarifying to keep the grammar nazis at bay.

Edited July 16, 2018 by NameAlreadyInUse

[Huckleberry 32703]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

The ontological definitions have been consistent all the way back to Plato. Trying to make this a semantic argument is a losing proposition.  The semantics are contained in both underlying axioms.

 

This is the problem posed:

If (1) only natural objects exist and (2) numbers do not exist naturally, then (3)?

Aleph can successfully turn any semantic argument for (2) back on (1). The definition has to be consistent across both for there to be any meaning.  You guys should instead be trying to solve for (3).

The obvious alternative answer is (3) = numbers do not exist, which is a stance that can actually be argued.

Well there's a huge blinding example of begging the question.

Start with proving that only natural objects exist.

[JBJ 3649]

29 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well there's a huge blinding example of begging the question.

Start with proving that only natural objects exist.

That would be counter-productive: that's exactly what Aleph is arguing against, and he's willing to give it to you for free for a solution of his problem (or at least to challenge you in a different manner).

Edited July 16, 2018 by JBJ

[Huckleberry 32703]

Right, the entire exercise is merely setting up an ostensibly logically rigid scenario where only the hypothesis can be proven. It's a sham.

It's as equally absurd as this:

If (1) only observable causes of phenomena can be proven to exist and (2) causes of supernatural phenomena are unobservable then (3) supernatural phenomena do not exist.

[hpslugga 4044]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well there's a huge blinding example of begging the question.

Start with proving that only natural objects exist.

He's already shown a tendency to assume the role of the pot calling the silverware black, so I wouldn't hold out for such a relatively lofty concept.

16 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

His definition makes it so any object you conjure up in your brain is supernatural, which means that if you conjure up the idea of God in your brain, the God must be supernatural and must exist.  Walla*, God is proven!  

Seriously, this conversation has devolved into some serious dishonest shit, which is typical of faith people. They will never adhere to standard definitions of the very concepts they want to argue, and that in their own mind allows them to make such idiotic proclamations as "An object is supernatural if it is not the case that it is natural." 

That's a paradigmatic example of a false dichotomy. It, again in the mind of the author, is a "cleverly" concealed version of "it's either natural or supernatural." What both I and Huck stated was perfectly accurate. If it's a tangible creation of humans, it's not supernatural; it's artificial. An automobile, a cotton gin, even a fucking pencil are all artificial. They are not supernatural. But they aren't natural either because "natural" means "existing or caused in nature." Artificial is "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural." "Supernatural" is the exact opposite of "natural," but for a different reason. "Supernatural" is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If something occurs in nature, it's natural.
If something occurs because a physical being within the natural realm created it, it's artificial.
If something occurs because an anthropomorphic immortal that exists outside of the natural realm used what amounts to an incantation, it's supernatural.

This really isn't that difficult.

[hpslugga 4044]

4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I gave a very clear and simple argument for my claim.  Was it a valid argument?  If so, which of the premises is false?  It is an argument with four lines.  If it is so crazy then it should be easy to attack.  

That's not how it works. You made the positive claim, and you have to demonstrate it. Besides, I actually did attack it. I told you precisely why it was wrong. The fact that you want to pretend that I didn't speaks only to your obsessive need to play Make Believe and Pretend.

4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I'm familiar with the god of the gaps argument and hitchens razor and most of the other flimsy new atheist rhetoric.

How is Hitchens' Razor "flimsy?"

4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

 You may be interested to know that the god of the gaps argument was actually developed by a 19th century theist (and not by one of the awe-inspiring new atheist horsemen) to attack lower grade versions of theism.

I was aware, and I was also aware of its total irrelevance to the conversation. The point is that God of the Gaps is a fallacious line of reasoning, but that's the perceived "default position" taken by people who ascribe to faith.

4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

  Hitchens was best when he preached to the choir and not when his ideas were opened for scrutiny by others who've thought about them at any length.  This is one of the reasons why he did so poorly in a public debate with William Lane Craig according to most atheist observers.

Geez, you make it seem as if I was quoting him because I hold him up as a God. I don't think that way. I found his political opinions, especially in his later life, to be absolutely immoral and deplorable. The only reason I dropped his name is because that Razor is attached to him, and not entirely rightfully either. To repeat, the entirety of it is:

Positive claims require positive evidence (they do because the only available alternative is proving a negative, which is inherently fallacious)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (same thing)
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (again, if you give me no reason to believe you, I therefore have no reason to believe you)

To use your words,  you may be interested to know that the first 2 of those 3 lines aren't even his. He was quoting Carl Sagan, and only that last line truly is Hitchens'. I'm sure you feel that you've explained everything by calling that "flimsy," but the reality is that it isn't. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that assertion, and you will never in your life be able to convince any serious person otherwise, including the useless allusion to his debate with Craig. Hitchens was far from a master debater and there are plenty of other anti-theists who people like Craig wouldn't even dare to engage (Aron Ra is probably the best example).

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The conclusion that numbers are ontologically dependent on human brains.

This is clearly a false claim.  If you believable that numbers are ontologically dependent on human brains, then you must also believe the following implied claims:

• If the human race was destroyed (e.g. in an apocalyptic meteor strike), then numbers would cease to exist.  They would cease to exist altogether and for any other forms of intelligence. 
• If any other universes separate & closed off from ours exist, then numbers would not exist in those universes.  
• If any extraterrestrial sapient life forms exist within our universe, then they could only know of numbers through the interaction with humans. 
• Non human animals could not know about or apply numbers unless they learn them through interaction with humans.  

 

22 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

How about the dictionary definition?

Numbers are not beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. They do not transcend nature and do not seem to come from magic or a god. Those are some of the various dictionary definitions of supernatural.

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yep. That definition differs from Aphelion's "An object is supernatural if and only if it is not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe," and it would bring you to a different conclusion because that definition of the supernatural would not include numbers. 

His definition suits his argument, and that's the point. 

27 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

His definition makes it so any object you conjure up in your brain is supernatural, which means that if you conjure up the idea of God in your brain, the God must be supernatural and must exist.  Walla*, God is proven!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Yes, I know its voila, but I can't remember if I first saw it spelled that way here or some other board, so clarifying to keep the grammar nazis at bay.

The definition that I am using for natural is in line with the meaning often used within physicalism & naturalism.  

"The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical."

"'physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The idea that I am carefully constructing the definition to get the outcome I want or that I have altered or personally conceived of these definitions in a vacuum is utter nonsense. I defined the term in a way that is semantically equivalent to how it is commonly used by physicalists & naturalists.  

 

 

[formermav43 4599]

21 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

He's already shown a tendency to assume the role of the pot calling the silverware black, so I wouldn't hold out for such a relatively lofty concept.

Seriously, this conversation has devolved into some serious dishonest shit, which is typical of faith people. They will never adhere to standard definitions of the very concepts they want to argue, and that in their own mind allows them to make such idiotic proclamations as "An object is supernatural if it is not the case that it is natural." 

That's a paradigmatic example of a false dichotomy. It, again in the mind of the author, is a "cleverly" concealed version of "it's either natural or supernatural." What both I and Huck stated was perfectly accurate. If it's a tangible creation of humans, it's not supernatural; it's artificial. An automobile, a cotton gin, even a fucking pencil are all artificial. They are not supernatural. But they aren't natural either because "natural" means "existing or caused in nature." Artificial is "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural." "Supernatural" is the exact opposite of "natural," but for a different reason. "Supernatural" is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If something occurs in nature, it's natural.
If something occurs because a physical being within the natural realm created it, it's artificial.
If something occurs because an anthropomorphic immortal that exists outside of the natural realm used what amounts to an incantation, it's supernatural.

This really isn't that difficult.

You’re making a distinction without a difference. “Artificial” isn’t a meaningful category, and Aphelion didn’t create the definitions out of thin air.

I mean, do you really think the gaping hole in all of the Naturalist thought of the 20th century was, “Golly, we never considered that humans made stuff”?

Edited July 16, 2018 by formermav43

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

Ok good for you. 

[sidis 9754]

7 hours ago, formermav43 said:

It goes further than that. In talking about proving a hypothesis as the only source of conclusive knowledge, you’re promoting an empiricist epistemology. That’s philosophy.

i'm really curious as to what point you think you are making here...

every time this thread pops up, i am always fascinated about how the conflation of the concept of religion (with its sacred texts, rigor, etc...) and the philosophy of deism goes unnoticed from the get-go...which leads to people just kind of talking past each other for a while.

instead of clumsily stumbling around this conversation re: analytic and synthetic a priori propositions for the four billionth time on this forum...perhaps we could just cut to the chase and everyone could go read these links:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

then we can all sit around and rightfully make fun of baptists.

[formermav43 4599]

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

i'm really curious as to what point you think you are making here...

every time this thread pops up, i am always fascinated about how the conflation of the concept of religion (with its sacred texts, rigor, etc...) and the philosophy of deism goes unnoticed from the get-go...which leads to people just kind of talking past each other for a while.

instead of clumsily stumbling around this conversation re: analytic and synthetic a priori propositions for the four billionth time on this forum...perhaps we could just cut to the chase and everyone could go read these links:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

then we can all sit around and rightfully make fun of baptists.

I think softly and I were  actually talking past each other, which is why I dropped it.

There are clearly a couple of posters in this thread who think that “science!” is the only source of knowledge. It was more in response to that-I don’t think softly is one.

Edited July 16, 2018 by formermav43

[David Dennison 18659]

45 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

This is clearly a false claim.  If you believable that numbers are ontologically dependent on human brains, then you must also believe the following implied claims:

• If the human race was destroyed (e.g. in an apocalyptic meteor strike), then numbers would cease to exist.  They would cease to exist altogether and for any other forms of intelligence. The symbols that we call numbers would cease to exist; quantities would not.
• If any other universes separate & closed off from ours exist, then numbers would not exist in those universes. What they use to symbolize quantity would not be what we call numbers
• If any extraterrestrial sapient life forms exist within our universe, then they could only know of numbers through the interaction with humans. They wouldn't. They would have their own symbols to represent quantity
• Non human animals could not know about or apply numbers unless they learn them through interaction with humans. Agreed. Without humans, animals deal with quantity, not the symbols we call numbers.

 

 

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Right, the entire exercise is merely setting up an ostensibly logically rigid scenario where only the hypothesis can be proven. It's a sham.

The logic isn't rigid, it is sound.  Changing the meaning of (2) changes the meaning of (1).  (1) is the argument being put forth from naturalists. If it must change to be true, then it is false.

If you don't think (1) is true, then you agree with Aleph (this is where most people are, and I think you are).

If you think that (1) is true, then you should be able to provide reasoning for (3) "numbers don't exist."  I am not being cheeky when I say that the solution is that "numbers don't exist."  It's the standard response from naturalism.  Of course the reasoning for how and why numbers don't exist is more important than simply making that statement.

DD is dancing all around it.

Edited July 16, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18659]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The logic isn't rigid, it is sound.  Changing the meaning of (2) changes the meaning of (1).  (1) is the argument being put forth from naturalists. If it must change to be true, then it is false.

If you don't think (1) is true, then you agree with Aleph (this is where most people are, and I think you are).

If you think that (1) is true, then you should be able to provide reasoning for (3) "numbers don't exist."  I am not being cheeky when I say that the solution is that "numbers don't exist."  It's the standard response from naturalism.  Of course the reasoning for how and why numbers don't exist is more important than simply making that statement.

DD is dancing all around it.

I just believe the phenomenon of symbolism occurs in the brain. Without the brain, there is no symbol. That doesn't mean there isn't quantity.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, sidis said:

i'm really curious as to what point you think you are making here...

every time this thread pops up, i am always fascinated about how the conflation of the concept of religion (with its sacred texts, rigor, etc...) and the philosophy of deism goes unnoticed from the get-go...which leads to people just kind of talking past each other for a while.

instead of clumsily stumbling around this conversation re: analytic and synthetic a priori propositions for the four billionth time on this forum...perhaps we could just cut to the chase and everyone could go read these links:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

then we can all sit around and rightfully make fun of baptists.

In principle this would be an agreeable solution, but few if any will actually cut to the chase and follow those links and do the independent study necessary to understand all of the related concepts. It’s not a matter of intelligence, but one of interest and diligence.  So when one makes a basic and otherwise noncontroversial claim on such topics it gets challenged and sometimes also accused of being absurd and this sets off the back-and-forths that would be unnecessary if these subjects were more commonly studied.   But they aren’t and so here we are.

I understand that some and maybe most people prefer to discuss specific religious claims in these threads and they aren’t necessarily interested in the base philosophical positions, but I am intrinsically interested in the base philosophical positions and I believe this is the case for at least a few others.  My general goal in these threads is to achieve mutual respect for the fundamental ideas of the various worldviews.  I do think this is a worthwhile pursuit since longstanding worldviews are being given unfair mischaracterzation as being fundamentally absurd and inconsistent. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Well there's a huge blinding example of begging the question.

Start with proving that only natural objects exist.

The burden of proof resides with the person/people/group making the claim, whether that claim is that something does exist or that it doesn't. Its foolhardy to assert a claim in the negative as providing evidence to support the claim is impossible to produce. Which is why in the entire argument of this thread, I've never asserted that "no supernatural objects exist." I have stated that no evidence for anything supernatural has ever been presented to meet the burden of proof on behalf of those who assert that anything supernatural does exist.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

There is no evidence that anything exists beyond the particle horizon. By definition, there can't be any evidence that anything exists beyond it. So by your own logic the nothing must be able to exist beyond it?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

5 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

There is no evidence that anything exists beyond the particle horizon. By definition, there can't be any evidence that anything exists beyond it. So by your own logic the nothing must be able to exist beyond it?

You have an equivocal fallacy here and seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof in your example. I do not accept your burden of proof. If you want to assert that, you provide the evidence for your claim. But don't try and slide that shit onto someone else.

[RayDog 682]

16 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I agree that the longer a conversation or debate goes the higher the likelihood that words and terms will change meaning throughout.  But this problem can be avoided by giving explicit definition to terms.  I already gave an explicit definition for supernatural.  The terms can be defined as follows:

• An object is natural if and only if it is solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.
• An object is supernatural if it is not the case that it is natural.  

So you are saying non-physical objects are supernatural disregarding that there is no such thing as a non-physical object.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

You have an equivocal fallacy here and seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof in your example. I do not accept your burden of proof. If you want to assert that, you provide the evidence for your claim. But don't try and slide that shit onto someone else

 

Have you not made the claim that the reason you don't believe anything supernatural exists is because no evidence has met the burden of proof that it does exist? If you are using that as your logic for believing that it does not exist (instead of saying that you can't know whether it exists or not) then you must then use that same logic for other things that do not meet the burden of proof for existence. I mean, you don't have to, but if you are going to try and pass yourself off as intelligent you do.

Edited July 17, 2018 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[RayDog 682]

There are two ways to prove that something does not exist prior to proceeding to the step of looking at observations and evidence.

1. The thing is known to be fictional

2. The thing is a logical impossibility.

Non-physical objects fail both tests.

Edited July 17, 2018 by RayDog

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

 

 

Have you not made the claim that the reason you don't believe anything supernatural exists is because no evidence has met the burden of proof that it does exist? If you are using that as your logic for believing that it does not exist (instead of saying that you can't know whether it exists or not) then you must then use that same logic for other things that do not meet the burden of proof for existence. I mean, you don't have to, but if you are going to try and pass yourself off as intelligent you do.

A better answer for what might or might not be beyond the horizon of the edges big bang is "I DON'T KNOW." In science, that is a perfectly acceptable answer especially instead of making unknowable, unprovable, and unsubstantiated claims.