PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Parallo on January 09, 2007, 09:53:09 pm
-
But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits. People can have hullucinations. I can't remember where it was said but it was said somewhere recently in a same sort of discussion. People on cocaine experience bugs in their skin. Is that real? No. I can rationaly say I am not a homo sexual. Wait! Must be PC in my examples :P I can rationaly say that I am not a homo/hetro sexual. I can present evidence.
[Removed off-topic part of post. --Karyuu]
-
But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits.
The idea is that you are not your body - you are simply the user of your body.
-
Well, Barty obviously didn't see it ;)
And no proof is iirefutable. There's such thing as photoshop. Or even social pressure. I know of people who were married for decades and had several kids before they realised they were gay. (I also know of a few perfectly straight girls who have kissed other girls just for the attention...)
But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits.
The idea is that you are not your body - you are simply the user of your body.
Again, I doubt that applies to a Death Guardian. Horribly mutilated 9-foot zombie-monster things don't strike me as the religious type... :P And even still, it still doesn't mean he would refer to another person as a 'spirit'. Sort of like I believe that, until I meet you in RL, you are simply a name on a computer screen. I'm still not gonna say "Stop wasting my time with talk, Name-on-computer-screen"
-
But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits.
The idea is that you are not your body - you are simply the user of your body.
How is that rational? Is there proof? Is there even remote evidence?
@emerald: I know of such people too that didn't have feelings for men untill they were much older. They either changed so to speak or all along have been bisexual but not found the right man, once again, so to speak. They were not exclusivly gay.
-
How is that rational? Is there proof? Is there even remote evidence?
Get read for this, cuz I'm gonna get all impressionist on ya.
Is the chair you are sitting on real? Is there proof? Real proof? Is there even remote evidence?
All understanding we have of the universe around us is based on assumption. We may use logic to move from axioms to new knowledge, but it's all built on a foundation of assumption. Proving those basic assumptions is often impossible or impractical, but it stops no one from using them in their daily lives.
Further, whether or not a belief is justified is beside the point if it's shared by a group of people. It's real to them, and so they give it reality.
-
But from our criteria of what constitutes evidence from our sences what proof or evidence is there? There is as much reason for believing in the tooth fairy.
-
But from our criteria of what constitutes evidence from our sences what proof or evidence is there? There is as much reason for believing in the tooth fairy.
It is merely an assumption that our senses constitute proper evidence.
-
But from our criteria of what constitutes evidence from our sences what proof or evidence is there? There is as much reason for believing in the tooth fairy.
It is merely an assumption that our senses constitute proper evidence.
How can assumption be enough to go on for anything? Why assume anything?
There are a trillion truths that have an equal chance of being the one true truth, which means there's like a 999 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 9 hundred and 99 to 1 chance that you're wrong.
Just enjoy the ride, and look forward to the answers at the end. I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.
-
Hey I already told you guys we are a bunch of grey blobs in an endless void....
-
I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.
Its because thats what we do, we are inquizative beings (or we wouldnt all be sat with PCs or fire or electricity etc.) I personally think that the only reason for life is reproduction, same purpose as worms, dogs, bacteria and viruses (its just we are a more virulent infection of our planet). Depressing isnt it ;D
-
I'd say the meaning of life is to live it ... not let it pass you by while you're completely left behind trying to contemplate how or why things happen.
And if the meaning is to reproduce ... how in the world can you call a fun purpose like that depressing? :P
-
Just because the purpose of our life is to reproduce doesn't mean we can't do other stuff to. The beauty of the human race is that through natural selection we escaped natural selection. Its no longer about being the fastest and fittest in order to survive. We have technology that can save even the dumbest humans from death. The beauty of the human species is the ability to make ones own gaols. Life should not be depressing given that.
It is merely an assumption that our senses constitute proper evidence.
But given the standard of evidence that it takes for something to become recognised as true. Have you heard of the celestial tea pot?
-
How can assumption be enough to go on for anything? Why assume anything?
There are a trillion truths that have an equal chance of being the one true truth, which means there's like a 999 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 9 hundred and 99 to 1 chance that you're wrong.
Just enjoy the ride, and look forward to the answers at the end. I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.
Any chance I can get a copy of those statistics?
-
Of the top of his head I'd guess.
-
Well, you could work out the statistics if you wanted. How many times have people been known to discover this thing in the past and its been proved accurate? I would vouch for zero times. That would sort of make it as statistically impossible as reaching the moon was in 1968 :P
Although I do think the term is always 'statistically improbable'.
-
Its just a guess that people have spirits. A random stab in the dark at a question that doesn't need answering without basis in evidence.
-
Well, you could work out the statistics if you wanted. How many times have people been known to discover this thing in the past and its been proved accurate? I would vouch for zero times. That would sort of make it as statistically impossible as reaching the moon was in 1968 :P
Although I do think the term is always 'statistically improbable'.
Show me any of these 'statistics' (http://www.answers.com/topic/statistics-2), probable or not. I dont think there are any 'statistical' findings on this subject.
How are we to know if some old farmer in Timbucktoo did discover the meaning of life, and when he tried to share it, everyone thought he was insane. Most theoligens wouldnt even consider listening to an uneducated country hick. The only ones who may listen to him would be The National Inquisitor, and that would only deplete his credibility more. There have been a few individuals who have claimed to have discovered the meaning of life, but have refused to share it with the world because according to them it is not the meaning of life that is the most important; It is the journey one takes to find the meaning.
Thus the common belief is that no one knows or has ever known the meaning of life. bla bla blah
/me continues to babble as he strolls away.
-
How can assumption be enough to go on for anything? Why assume anything?
There are a trillion truths that have an equal chance of being the one true truth, which means there's like a 999 billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 9 hundred and 99 to 1 chance that you're wrong.
Just enjoy the ride, and look forward to the answers at the end. I don't understand people's desire to know life's meaning. It'll just wreck the experience, even if you DO discover the answer now, which is statistically impossible.
Any chance I can get a copy of those statistics?
I'm sorry. I'm lying; there's more than a trillion. It would take a trillion lifetimes to count up all the possibilities.
Maybe everything about Christianity is true but Jesus is actually called Jesuth.
Maybe everything about Christianity is true but Jesus actually had 12,456 hairs on his head instead of 12,455
Maybe everything about Christianity is true but Jesus was nailed to the cross with 9-inch nails rather than 5-inch. Or 8-inch rather than 6-inch.
You might say something that insignificant doesn't matter, but it still means that the 'truth' in question is really not a whole truth. And so there's a different truth for every hair on Jesus' head, and a different truth for every possible length for every hair on Jesus' head, and so on.
Right down to the world actually being created by Teletubies in the year 2000, and that the program simultaneously brainwashed us to think we actually have 2006 years of history, rather than six :P
There may not be 'statistics', because it doesn't bear thinking about. Religion is susceptible to human imagination, and human imagination is virtually limitless.
Are you really saying that we should worry about the meaning of life because there's a substantial chance of finding it among the lies?
P.S. it is not the meaning of life that is the most important; It is the journey one takes to find the meaning.
That's a good point. But again, what do people really mean when they 'Journey to find the meaning of life'? I mean, how many people really go into a field to meditate and then go "Ooh, I never knew that about myself. Yay. Now, back to my accountancy job..."
You can 'find yourself' without involving religion at all.
-
Eldoth draws "solipsism" on the blackboard, shakes his head with resignation, cracks a beer and goes back to measuring stellar parallax on his spiffy theodolite.
-
I said absolutly nothing about religion, I was talking about the meaning of life.
If it "doesn't bear thinking about" then why are some cultures based on the search for it. Simply because it has no meaning to you, does not negate its existance. A tribal Indian from deep in the jungle with no contact with the rest of the world doesnt believe in other planets, all he sees are shinny things in the sky. Does that mean Mars and Pluto arent there? We all have our own beliefs from the enviriment we were raised in. Some beliefs have been accepted by most of the world because of the advanced communication technologies we now have, information and ideas are easily shared with little limitations.
/me still babbling walks in circles
-
*Pizzasgood gets that long-winded look in his fingers as they head menacingly toward the keyboard.....
Horribly mutilated 9-foot zombie-monster things don't strike me as the religious type...
You never know. A probably ancient dead guy who hangs out in a small cave and watches new dead people exit the world all day might well have turned mushy and philosophical. And why does being a mutilated or 9-foot tall have to do with it? (monster is subjective, and it's the death realm so zombie is irrelevant). I think sitting there with half your gut missing while other people enter in one piece could make someone either very violent or very sensitive. I feel sad for the big guy :'(
The point I was trying to make before is that nobody really knows anything. Your whole world could be a drug-induced hallucination. You have no way of proving that aliens or the Men in Black haven't replaced your memory. Neither way can be proved. We can each insist on our versions of reality, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Personally, I don't believe the chair that I'm currently leaning back in is imaginary, but I don't know that 100%.
As for science, it is only an approximation. We actually don't know any of the real laws of nature, if there even are any. This is why I'm able to have science and religion co-exist in my reality. Just because science doesn't show proof that God exists doesn't mean he doesn't. Science always changes in attempts to approximate reality. Look at what Einstein did. Newton made a great attempt, but it breaks down if you go fast enough. Einstein tried to do a better approximation for high speeds. It isn't perfect either. It's like using a Reimann Sum with n=5, then going to n=10. It still won't get the whole curve. Thus, anything is possible. General perceived experience says that an eagle will not shoot out of my butt tomorrow, but there is no way to prove that.
Religion (to me) is the same thing. It's an approximation. You can look at it in various ways depending on what your personal beliefs are, but in general it is an attempt to explain the world. Even if you are a Christian, and you believe the words of the bible are absolute truth, it is still only an approximation. You can't fully describe God in text, only approximate him. (Actually, a textual description of anything is an approximation). It probably says as much somewhere, I don't remember.
Neither of these approximations fully explains anything. Remember the "why" question? If you do it enough to scientist or priests, you'll probably get a "I don't know, shut up already!"
So in short, you cannot say whether spirits exist or do not in "real" life, only what you take as the truth. You cannot efficiently argue your opinion to be more valid. You can say that the majority supports your opinion, and that is all.
Life meaning. Another subjective topic. It depends on what you think life is. You can believe we are here to be tested before being allowed to exist in God's court. You can believe we are here to make God smile. You can believe we are here to cultivate the planet. You can believe we are here as punishment. You can believe we are here because some alien biologist forgot us. You can believe we are here because a giant turtle farted near a match, starting a big bang and leading to the evolution of humans and our superior though distant cousin the iguana. You could even believe we are here because we are not over there.
Me, I think everybody's life has it's own purpose, which is what that person chooses it to be. I think it is not destined, though God may have a desire for you to use it one way, and may urge you towards it. A good general part is to be happy and spread happiness. And to be helpful. Most of all, to laugh. The greater part for mine, I haven't discovered yet. There may not be one. I'll probably stumble across it. I might make it to bring life to Mars (if there isn't already). I might make it to destroy Microsoft. Or I might make it to do the iguana a favor and exterminate our pitiful race ;D Nah.
I liked the bit about escaping natural selection. I never heard that take on it before. In a way we are still there though. If you have some horrible problem, you are less likely to pass it down unless it doesn't kick in until late in life. Notice I said "less likely", yes I know many people still do. But we have still basically taken evolution into our own hands. Technically, as part of nature, we are still following it. Just in a different way from the others.
A note to the zealous: I actually don't believe we evolved, though I'm far from solid on that. However, I am perfectly accepting of it as an approximation. Besides, just because the bible doesn't specify the inner-workings of God's mind doesn't mean he just plopped us down. Maybe he sort of ran an "evolution simulation" in his head to skip it, or maybe we actually did evolve half-way, then he skipped us ahead. Or maybe we did evolve completely, but God created the initial life. Regarding the bible, the men who wrote it obviously did not know all there is to know. They did their best at describing it. Maybe God simplified it for them, maybe they made it up. In the end, it makes no difference. I believe there is a force somehow semi-responsible for my being here, who occasionally helps me out subtly. I believe that I should strive to be "good", and that being good or bad have their consequences. The details are fun to try to sort out, but don't matter in the end. Not worth killing a person over different beliefs, unless those believes are so funky they involve the guy running around chasing two-year-olds with a riding lawnmower and a backpack full of granades. Although killing may not be the way to go, that's a whole nother discussion. But, I have to get up for Calc III tomorrow, so I'll skip that one :whistling:
Back on topic, are possessions possible in the Planeshift world? I don't know. There are several ways it could happen:
A: Jack's spirit could leave his body and enter Bob's. Jack's spirit could already have been separated for some reason (death? worse-than-death? funky spell destroyed body but preserved spirit? Spell removed spirit?).
B: A naturally bodiless spirit, as in a species of beast that simply has no body, possesses Bob.
C: Spell (Dark-way probably) bends Bob to will of Jack, without Jack's spirit going anywhere. Could simply control Bob's body, or it could influence Bob's mind, making him actually desire the things Jack wishes him to desire.
D: Jack makes a "copy" of his spirit that enters Bob.
E: Crazy parasite slug wraps around Bob's brain and takes over (sorry, couldn't resist...)
F: Bob is hypnotized
G: Bob is insane and only thinks he is being possessed. Could be a multiple-personality type thing.
Okay, time for me to shut up and sleep. :-X Feel free to applaud the soothing absence of text.
-
I said absolutly nothing about religion, I was talking about the meaning of life.
The meaning of life is necessarily a religious discussion since material sciences cannot even begin to provide us with the answer.
-
So philosophy cannot be separated from religion? Thus existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism) W is a religion?
-
So philosophy cannot be separated from religion? Thus existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism) W is a religion?
You could definately argue that the tenant that "nothing is true" is religious in nature.
-
So everything is religious, my web cam is, so bow down to the allmighty web cam. How about my jar of pennies or the 2 dozen hats hanging on my wall. One could equate religion into anything if that is there belief, and who could argue? If that is your belief, well, good for you; many others would not believe the same thing.
EDIT: since this is off topic, you are all welcome to continue this discussion Here (http://adraax.19.forumer.com/index.php)
-
LARAGORN, don't you know that everything is a creation of the God? ;P
-
LARAGORN, don't you know that everything is a creation of the God? ;P
WOW, I knew there was something missing. Now I understand everything, thanks Niko :P
-
So everything is religious, my web cam is, so bow down to the allmighty web cam. How about my jar of pennies or the 2 dozen hats hanging on my wall. One could equate religion into anything if that is there belief, and who could argue? If that is your belief, well, good for you; many others would not believe the same thing.
EDIT: since this is off topic, you are all welcome to continue this discussion Here (http://adraax.19.forumer.com/index.php)
Hmm. Your webcam isn't religious, but the idea you have of your webcam - the concept of webcam - could be defined as religious. And if you have a pattern of behaviour involving your webcam, there all those who would say that would qualify as something religious in nature.
Religion is anything that involves belief.... interesting suggestion.
-
The way that terms like fact and scientificly proven are used in this day is not going to change in this thread. When I say prove to me that god/toothfairy/flying spagetti monster exists I mean in the same way as prove that chair exists. I simply can't articulate perfectly what I mean but it should be clear given what these words are taken to mean when used in passing. When I say prove [word here] and you say 'how can you prove anything?' you're just shifting the goal posts. Saying that there are spirits is as absurd as saying that there are aleins living inside your anus planning to take over the world. No basis in 'fact' as we call it now.
-
The thing is that not everyone agrees on what constitutes proof. For some people, proof means empirical evidence. For others, proof means faith.
Personally, I think that proof though faith is silly. It's simply "knowing through knowing". You know that something is true because you "know" that it is true. "It's from the gut!" or "God speaks to me." and so on - the idea that your knowledge is somehow inspired.
-
But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.
-
But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.
Except that your definition of proof isn't the only definition out there. To people who believe in faith, faith is a kind of proof.
-
But how can you believe something thats so absurd and has no basis in reality? If I said I was able to move through walls would you in your heart believe me and call that evidence? Would you not laugh at someone that did?
-
Your webcam isn't religious
Well, it depends. Maybe all matter possesses a little bit of a spirit. In that case, it is. So it depends on who you ask.
You say prove there is a spirit. You claim there is no way to do so. I deny that. It is perfectly possible to prove or disprove (depending on whether there really is). The problem is that we don't have the needed physics yet. 2000 years ago, you could have asked me to prove that you didn't have a whole mess of little wriggly squishy things shoved together to create your body, and I wouldn't have been able to. By your definition of "know", we now know that you are composed of a vast number of cells, each one a living creature that eats, metabolizes, grows, reproduces, and dies. In essence, you are actually a composition of many smaller creatures who live and cooperate with eachother to support the community that we see as your body. All you are is the sum total of them.
But 2000 years ago, that would have seemed even more ridiculous than saying that you are insane and only imagine having this conversation with me, or that I have a spirit, or maybe eight trillion spirits that merge together in a kind of government to create the entity known as Pizzasgood.
With the rate modern science has been progressing, who knows what we will prove or disprove in the next 2000 years (if we don't kill ourselves or partake in a religious ending first).
I'm not trying to prove spirits exist, just to explain why it isn't ridiculous to believe such a thing.
-
I believe in grey blobs, but I don't expect anyone else to. Oh and hey a webcam is an electric eye so it has a soul....
-
But how can you believe something thats so absurd and has no basis in reality? If I said I was able to move through walls would you in your heart believe me and call that evidence? Would you not laugh at someone that did?
Reality is based on perception and perception is based on assumption.
If a person defined evidence as "That which Parallo says is true", then they will take your word as proof.
-
Zanzibar's right.
If you told anyone from the year 1000 that you could instantly talk to someone in another country using a small metal box they would react pretty much the same way you did to spirits being real, Paro.
That's because they could never perceive, or conceive, or assume of such a thing, or whatever you want to call it. That doesn't mean wireless cross-country communication doesn't exist in 1000 AD. It's just nobody knew about it.
Maybe that's a bad example, but you know what I mean; in 1000 years man could easily discover, using some sort of electro-magnetic detection device or something, that souls really do exist. Just because we don't have the means to prove something now, doesn't mean it's unprovable.
-
But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.
Except that your definition of proof isn't the only definition out there. To people who believe in faith, faith is a kind of proof.
I don't buy that. Pretty much everyone agrees on what proof is and it's NOT faith. The tricky part is knowing when you have proof. Some people mistake what they see as proof when it is only evidence. Proof is what logically can only point to one thing. Seeing something is not proof (ie seeing a dot in the sky not acting like any aircraft is not proof of aliens) Proof is not an absolute, but it is so narrowly defined that it isn't open to much interpretation, certainly not to be confused with faith. Faith is a belief accepted as fact. If you can, at a later date prove what you already 'knew' to be true, then your faith is vindicated. If someone proves you wrong, then your faith was misplaced. Faith does not have much intrinsic value to the discussion of weather something is or is not. If 99% of the world believes in something that isn't true, it does not make it true. The only value faith has is that if someone believes something, then there is a reason for that belief. Not necessarily a valid reason, but a reason nonetheless. The absence of evidence is also evidence, not proof. If something exists, it necessarily leaves behind evidence of it's existence. If you find no evidence, then it supports the conclusion that what you're looking for doesn't exist, but it is not proof. You can't prove a negative, but you can by process of elimination go beyond a reasonable doubt in that direction. Once you do, any continued belief in its existence becomes faith..
This is why people get hung up on the relationship between science and religion. They are not opposed philosophies. Science has specific criteria for accepting something as fact. It does not deny those things that fail the test of that criteria, but it doesn't incorporate those things into its body of knowledge That is where faith comes in. Faith is an attempt to explain what science hasn't gotten around to yet. The only problem I see with faith is when it attempts to redefine what science has already defined, or refuses to accept what science discovers because it doesn't fit the reality that faith has constructed. Science and faith are not opposing forces, but if we accept science into our lives, we have to accept the possibility that it will someday destroy or at least radically alter all parts of the universe we have come to accept through faith.
Yes.... I am way too wordy for my own good. My Dad was an aeronautics engineer and my Mom was a philosophy major. What can I say? :)
-
I can say that you're probably right if you're talking about the present world in general
The problem with science as 'fact', is that science is based on other science, which is based on other science, which could be fundamentally wrong to begin with.
Like Zanzibar was (kind of) saying; Faith is a kind of proof because it's just as valid as scientific proof is. Scientific proof is done with gizmos that measure things and then give a number for us to plot onto a graph and interpret, or something like that, whereas faith relies on humans rather than human-made machines. Is there really a difference?
Kind of like when they used to believe that the fact that the sun moves around the sky was irrefutable proof that the sun orbited around us. They didn't really understand about gravity or how the sun's higher mass constitutes a higher gravitational pull, they just assumed based on what they knew at the time.
Which is all we can do, too.
There's obviously going to be things that we'll say are impossible that will be possible, just like there was ten years ago.
-
You cant compare the two.
science fact, is continualy challenged, and when it is proven to be incorrect it is changed. Science is continualy evolving as the understanding of the things around us improves. It is not absolute, and never will be, if it was then we would be all knowing, if we are all knowing then we would be gods.
Faith or the R word, is absolute. There is no room for error, the rules and laws are set in a totalitarian way.
-
I can say that you're probably right if you're talking about the present world in general
The problem with science as 'fact', is that science is based on other science, which is based on other science, which could be fundamentally wrong to begin with.
Like Zanzibar was (kind of) saying; Faith is a kind of proof because it's just as valid as scientific proof is. Scientific proof is done with gizmos that measure things and then give a number for us to plot onto a graph and interpret, or something like that, whereas faith relies on humans rather than human-made machines. Is there really a difference?
Kind of like when they used to believe that the fact that the sun moves around the sky was irrefutable proof that the sun orbited around us. They didn't really understand about gravity or how the sun's higher mass constitutes a higher gravitational pull, they just assumed based on what they knew at the time.
Which is all we can do, too.
There's obviously going to be things that we'll say are impossible that will be possible, just like there was ten years ago.
Not true that faith is a proof as valid as science. When you flick on a light switch, you are providing evidence of electricity. Science is testable. Everything accepted in science has an effect that is reproducable. Faith does not have that reliabllity. If it did have that reliability, then science would accept it and you wouldn't have to take it on faith anymore. All the supernatural phenomena in the world that people swear by cannot be produced on command. Psychics can't read peoples minds all the time, or even 60% of the time. Remote viewers can't see their target more than 50% of the time and when they do some of the time they produce wrong images. Ghosts do not always appear to people at their haunted places (and they are conspicuously absent when camera's are around) Prophets of the future are either frequently wrong or are so vauge that you can understand the prediction only after it came to pass. Even if all these phenomena are real, they are so unreliable as to be impractical. Things like this happen all the time in science. Cold fusion is a perfect example. Dozens of scientists have come out claiming to have discovered how to do it. When their experiments are tried by others, they don't work, get wildly different results or turn out to be contaminated data. Does it mean these people weren't on to something? no. Does it mean that they should stop their research? no. But it means we can't say cold fusion is possible.
Another example: There have been several attempts to prove the effect of prayer. The closest they've gotten is that sometimes prayer SEEMs to have an effect, but the same experiment done again yields different results, mostly negative results. Even if the first result was actually prayer healing sick people, it failed the second time under the same circumstances. So either it was a coincidence, or there are variable outside our control that dramatically affect the outcome. Does this mean that prayer has no effect? no. It does mean that with the tools we have now, we can't prove that it does, and more importantly, because of those unknown, uncontrollable and apparently very influential factors acting on prayer, we can't rely on it either. You are free to believe whatever you want and do whatever you want, but does it mean that we put prayer into medical textbooks? No.
-
From the history of people going to lourdes in their thousands per year six have thus far been cured without intervention attributed to medicene. In other words six out of thousands of thousands got better. Enough to convince people they'll get better? Of course! Look how many people go! Science is made up of theories. Everytime an experiment is carried out and the evidence 'proves' the theory that just means that it has survived. There is no way of knowing for certain the outcome each time of even the most mundane experiment but through previous testings of the same theory we have ammased evidence with which we can make an educated guess at the outcome. Thats what evidence is about. Now, once again, where is the evidence of spirits?
-
If faith is proof then the heavens must be crowded with various gods as a lof people believe in a lot of different gods, Hindus believe in a whole bunch all by themselves. How do these supreme beings all get along? That would seem to be evidence that religion is fantasy. Now the human brain is a lot more complex than we can understand and it is possible there are sound scientific reasons for what passes as miracles that we just don't have enough information to comprehend. An example would be the placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect)(w)
-
As Dawkins put it "Your Atheistic about all the other gods. Some of us just like to take it one god further."
-
Now, once again, where is the evidence of spirits?
That's the point. We don't have any yet, because we don't have the tools to detect them. Lack of evidence doesn't make something ridiculous or non-existent. There are many things that physics will describe in a thousand years that we currently have no evidence of. The evidence for those things exists, we just aren't aware of it. Just like the evidence for other solar systems existed in 50BC, but nobody was aware of it.
Nobody is saying spirits are scientific fact, just that they may become scientific fact in the future. In the mean-time, why would something that science doesn't account for be ridiculous? Improbable maybe. But that doesn't make it ridiculous. Only the people who refuse to accept that they don't know everything call such ideas ridiculous. Do you really wish to be thrown in with those people? They do make up the majority, but every so often they are shown to be complete fools. Meanwhile, those who allow the possibility of different ideas only learn whether the idea is correct or not. They never claimed it was true, only that it could be. When they are wrong, they move on to another idea. When they are right, they still move on to the next idea, or maybe pursue the original further. But they don't feel ridicule, because they never behaved ridiculously.
-
If faith is proof then the heavens must be crowded with various gods as a lof people believe in a lot of different gods, Hindus believe in a whole bunch all by themselves. How do these supreme beings all get along? That would seem to be evidence that religion is fantasy. Now the human brain is a lot more complex than we can understand and it is possible there are sound scientific reasons for what passes as miracles that we just don't have enough information to comprehend. An example would be the placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect)(w)
The placebo effect is quite easy to understand even given our limited knowledge. The mechanism for controling every aspect of our bodies already exists in everyone. An analogy is that telephone lines that are laid to every house in the city. It is a proven fact that the brain sends as well as recieves instructions and information from/to all parts of the body. The body's immune system is very powerful. It can destroy any cell in the body, even its own healthy cells. Given the right trigger, the body can heal itself or self-destruct. In practice, there are illnesses the body can't deal with, but the mechanism is in place for them to be dealt with. Most 'cures' are just enhancements to our own natural immune system. It's much easier to help the body fight off an illness than to do it all from the outside. Vaccines are a way of teaching our immune system about identifying a virus and destroying it. There are only three limits on what the human body is capable of, direction from the brain, genetic instructions in our DNA, and energy to provide the power. Energy can and is provided by drugs. To some degree, direction is provided directly to the immune system, and we're very close to unlocking (at least partially) the genetic instructions. What remains to be seen is what are the limits of the brains consious our unconsious ability to control the body. The infrastructure for that control is already there. The rest is instruction. Except for injury, any illness that we can cure with drugs can be cured by the body without anything but energy (food).
It is entirely possible that things like prayer and placebo's are tapping into that mechanism to fix things in the body that aren't otherwise fixable. It may not be a consious decision on the part of the patient, but merely a matter of putting the brain in the right enviroment to effect that control. Placebo's are the same way. It is generally accepted that the state of mind the patient is in has a distinct affect which is not always quantifiable, but common enough to be verifiable. If their body reacts to the placebo the same way it reacts to the real drug, then I would be surprised if there wasn't some measurable effect. Treatments that are foolproof fail for no reason and patients that should have died don't. Nothing spiritual about it. It's just a theory with a substantial amount of evidence behind it, that seems to fit all the facts we do know. It's much easier to wrap my mind around something like that than the idea that if you're nice to God, he grants your prayers.
*edit*
In the mean-time, why would something that science doesn't account for be ridiculous? Improbable maybe. But that doesn't make it ridiculous. Only the people who refuse to accept that they don't know everything call such ideas ridiculous. Do you really wish to be thrown in with those people?
No, but do you want to be thrown into the same group as those that say "Well you can't prove it wasn't a UFO, so I'm going to believe that aliens abducted my dog." You can't accept something because there is "no evidence against" any more than you can assume something doesn't exist simply because there is no evidence for. Unexplained lights in the sky are just that, unexplained lights in the sky. If you believe in aliens, it is because you choose to believe.
I have not seen one shred of evidence that spirits exist. Does that mean they don't? no. But because I can't prove they don't is no license for people to believe they do.
[ Please avoid making one post right after the other in the same thread. Just "Modify" your first post to add more information. --Karyuu ]
-
Fact is that there are plenty of people that believe that there are spirits with no reason other than they were told so by their elders. They believe deep in their hearts that this is true when they have no reason to do so. You cannot say that a logical person would think that after giving it some thought. I'd be a spiritual agnostic in so much as I'm a tooth fairy agnostic.
-
But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.
Except that your definition of proof isn't the only definition out there. To people who believe in faith, faith is a kind of proof.
I don't buy that.
Then how do you explain people who believe that the Bible is a source of literal absolute truth?
If faith is proof then the heavens must be crowded with various gods as a lof people believe in a lot of different gods, Hindus believe in a whole bunch all by themselves. How do these supreme beings all get along? That would seem to be evidence that religion is fantasy. Now the human brain is a lot more complex than we can understand and it is possible there are sound scientific reasons for what passes as miracles that we just don't have enough information to comprehend. An example would be the placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect)(w)
The point isn't that faith is correct, the point is that there are people who sincerely believe in it - just as there are people who sincerely believe in science - and it's truly impossible to prove who is right because it's all based on assumption.
-
It wouldn't be so bad if people simply said "I don't care if their's no evidence I "KNOW" they exist. We could part ways and they could believe what they want, and I could believe what I want.
Unfortunately people all over the place say they have "scientific proof" that these things are real, when they actually have no more than an unexplained event and a blip on a monitor, smudge on a photo or an 'eyewitness' who has everything to gain by either lying or embellishing the truth. I'm sorry, there is not proof. You can believe anything you want to, and when(if) you have solid evidence, I'll listen with an open mind. Until then, just because you saw it on Ghost Hunters doesn't mean anything.
-
But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.
Except that your definition of proof isn't the only definition out there. To people who believe in faith, faith is a kind of proof.
I don't buy that.
Then how do you explain people who believe that the Bible is a source of literal absolute truth?
I'm not about to try to explain those people. I just know that the reasons THEY give for why they believe the way they do are filled with inconsistencies and conclusions at odds with what science has discovered about the nature of the universe. Science can point to research, peer-reviewed science (ie repeatable, testable experiments). People of faith only say "How can you not believe?" Easy... I have no compelling reason to believe. From where I'm standing, there's no contest. I'm not going to tell them their God doesn't exist, just that he doesn't exist for me. I have no reference points for incorporating him into my world view except as a possibility, and a remote one at that. That is not enough of a basis to make decisions that will change my whole life.
When you want to convince someone of something, you have to use evidence that they have no choice but to accept. Those of faith frequently use personal revelation to 'prove' their point which boils down to "I believe. Why don't you?" and when I tell them why, they don't understand it.
And what's more, even if God does exist, considering all the changes and edits the Bible has gone through and how many denominations there are in the world and how many religions there are each claiming to be the One True Word, even if I wanted to have blind faith in a supreme being, which one do I choose? Allah, Budda, Dianne, Odin, Isis, Jesus, Jehova.... who's right? By the law of averages, they're all wrong. They might have some of it right, but the odds that even one of them got it 100% right is vanishingly small, yet they say they are right and the rest are wrong.
Should I follow God because he's right? or because he's God? or because I'll go to Hell if I don't? If God has good ideas, then shouldn't we be more concerned with what he said than the fact that he said it? If you want to convince someone that a rule that God laid down should be followed, shouldn't you present it outside of the context of it being a commandment from God? If you can't convince someone of a rule without saying, in effect "Well God said we should do it this way." then how are you going to be able to convince me that the rule is just if I don't even buy the idea that God is real? Most skip to the end and try to convince me that I should do what God says (usually for no other reason than that he is God) without trying to convince me that God is real. It's rather annoying and a little insulting.
-
These same people will tell you that god exists outside of the laws and rules of the universe and therefore can't be explained. Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYm8h2wQGo)
-
Falsifiablility.
It doesn't allow you prove everything, but it does prove a whole lot.
You ask him questions that would falsify him being your premise.
Such as, is parallo 30 years old.
Then we'd say, if he's 35, he's not thirty.
Want to prove something, find something that would make your premise wrong, then ask questions to see if you were right.
~~Datruth
-
These same people will tell you that god exists outside of the laws and rules of the universe and therefore can't be explained. Linky
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYm8h2wQGo)
Then they can't use scientific points of reference to try to convince me he's real. I am perfectly willing to believe in something that I have no evidence for or against, but you can't say on the one hand that God can't be explained, and then on the other try to explain him to me. The faithful are always trying to do that. The big kick nowadays is Intelligent Design. They are trying to create a scientific basis for the existence of a creator. The problem is that the idea of a creator fails the scientific method. "Never mind that," say ID proponents. "We know he exists and you can't prove otherwise."
That is utter nonsense. Either you stick with the "unfathomable unexplainable" and therefore undefinable creator, or you play by scientific rules. You can't pick and chose which aspects of science you use and which you don't.
-
Your willing to believe in something with no evidence either way Swordsbane? There is a tea pot orbiting earth.
Ps: I'm not thirty :P
-
Your willing to believe in something with no evidence either way Swordsbane? There is a tea pot orbiting earth.
Ps: I'm not thirty :P
What I meant was that I have no problem with it. For instance, I'm not against the possibility that aliens visit the Earth on a regular basis and abduct people for scientific experimentation. However, I have yet to see any evidence that this is taking place. I have no problem with people believing anyway dispite the lack of evidence. On the other hand, if you SAY you have scientific evidence, then I expect to see it, not a bunch of vauge notions that seem to suggest that it isn't impossible that you're right.
-
For Dawkins, being a Bright implies being hard on religious people, with good reason in my opinion.
And chosing a thousand of more constants from an infinite amount of choices has a choice of 0+, common notation for the number as close to zero as you can get without being 0. If you believe there can be a number such as infinity you must believe that there is an inverse to it.
Just thought I'd set a few things straight.
-
Other possible explanations:
Every universe does exist.
The constants are not arbitrary.
The constants are not constant.
And so on.
-
Other possible explanations:
Every universe does exist.
The constants are not arbitrary.
The constants are not constant.
And so on.
Nurakh, the second part of your post.. made no sense to me, please reiterate.
As for you Zanzibar, Nothing is absolute.
Everything in this world is relative, we know nothing absolutely.
What we're discussing, is IF our relative views, our eyes, our measurments, WERE correct.
That there is a universe.
IF our relative calculations, and our relative experiences are correct, THEN constants, are constant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's not hard to argue... well, we could all be in the matrix.
Which is what you are saying basically.
I understand that the constants might not be constant, EVEN though we've tested them millions of times.
I understand that.
Everything is relative to our 5 senses, and our measurement tools.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But you have to start somewhere, you need something to work with.
And we've been working with what we have.
And today, we have the internet.
I'd say, our calculations are pretty accurate.
Oh, and we also have the ability to go into space, a very costly, and amazing feat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So do i believe constants are constants, yes.
And do i believe there is a universe, yes.
Have we been flurishing thus far in science, yes.
Could we all be wrong, and everything we thought turned upside down, yes.
Do we know anything absolutely, no.
So please, from now on, Argue from a LOGICAL standpoint, because we all know things could be the opposite of what they appear to be.
Again, because we all have to start somewhere, such as, i am here, at this point.
~~Datruth
-
Nothing is absolute.
A statement Nietzsche would be proud of.
It's not hard to argue... well, we could all be in the matrix.
Which is what you are saying basically.
It's not what I'm saying at all, actually.
Everything is relative to our 5 senses, and our measurement tools.
But we aren't in touch with what's really real. All we have are our senses which are merely sensations which are merely electric signals in our brain, and there's this whole process of interpretting it before it actually becomes awareness.
I'm not trying to say what is true. I'm trying to say that people determine what is true in a certain fashion.
-
I understand what you mean, i've heard of it from the black box situation.
Basically, you have a back box, something is in it.
You can't see the box, or use your 5 senses to figure out what's in it.
Someone might say, let's just xray the box, you'd still be looking at the xray, using your viision, to determine what is in it.
The actual xray would be fine, but the process of you looking at the results ruins it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Basically the point or premise of the situation is to show you no matter what you do, eventually, everything filters into you through your sense of touch, eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, or sense of taste.
Thus, we can't absolutely know anything because of the limits of our own tools, our senses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But for us to get anywhere, do anything, we need to start somewhere.
And our starting point, is our brain, and 5 senses.
~~Datruth
-
I understand what you mean, i've heard of it from the black box situation.
Basically, you have a back box, something is in it.
You can't see the box, or use your 5 senses to figure out what's in it.
Someone might say, let's just xray the box, you'd still be looking at the xray, using your viision, to determine what is in it.
The actual xray would be fine, but the process of you looking at the results ruins it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Basically the point or premise of the situation is to show you no matter what you do, eventually, everything filters into you through your sense of touch, eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, or sense of taste.
Thus, we can't absolutely know anything because of the limits of our own tools, our senses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But for us to get anywhere, do anything, we need to start somewhere.
And our starting point, is our brain, and 5 senses.
~~Datruth
You still don't get it. The point isn't that our senses are limited. The point is that our senses aren't even means of sensing objective reality.
An example that might help is colour. Colour does not exist. There is no such thing as red. Red is simply the way our brain interprets a certain wavelength of light, but there is no redness inherent to that light.
-
Aye, nothing has a colour. It just absorbs certain colours from the full spectrum of light that hits it reflecting back the rest into our eye.
-
Aye, nothing has a colour. It just absorbs certain colours from the full spectrum of light that hits it reflecting back the rest into our eye.
ack
no
Things do not absorb colours because colours do not exist. There is no colour in light. It's something invented by our brains. Colour is not reflected back the rest into our eye, because there is no colour in the light. It's just light.
-
But the waves of light that we observe as being colour are absorbed. Whats left of the full spectrum of light waves are beamed into the eye which then when combined and interpruted by our sences are percieved as colour. Its years ago that I heard it so I may be wrong. Not exactly on my curriculum anyway!
-
But the waves of light that we observe as being colour are absorbed. Whats left of the full spectrum of light waves are beamed into the eye which then when combined and interpruted by our sences are percieved as colour. Its years ago that I heard it so I may be wrong. Not exactly on my curriculum anyway!
The point is the colour is simply how we percieve light - colour does not exist apart from the perception.
-
Naturally. Just like soft is how we percieve something to the touch and harmonious is how we percieve something to the ear.
-
Naturally. Just like soft is how we percieve something to the touch and harmonious is how we percieve something to the ear.
I think colour is a more extreme example though because it doesn't connect well to the physical properties of the phenomenon in question.
-
Color exists no different than pitch. Both are arbitrary names to particular wavelengths that can be humanly perceived. If we were not able to perceive them the wavelengths would still exist although likely the names would not. If you look at a light source it can have its own color and not depend on reflection and absorbsion to give it color.
If you doubt it prove me wrong ;)
-
Color exists no different than pitch. Both are arbitrary names to particular wavelengths that can be humanly perceived. If we were not able to perceive them the wavelengths would still exist although likely the names would not. If you look at a light source it can have its own color and not depend on reflection and absorbsion to give it color.
If you doubt it prove me wrong ;)
You're very wrong. Colour does not describe wavelength. Colour is our description of an experience that our brain produces. Wavelength has a reality outside of our brain, but colour does not have a reality outside of our brain. We do not percieve colour. Colour is not there to percieve. We merely experience colour in reaction to certain wavelengths of light.
-
So What I infer from what you are saying is that I could perceive a wavelength of ~ 565–590 nm (yellow) as some other color taking for granted that I perceive color in a normal manner and am not color blind or suffer from a different perceptual defect. It could be yellow today and blue tomorrow, green and red the day after? While it is true that how we perceive the wavelength may differ from person to person the terminology refers to the particular band however it actually appears to us.
If color has no reality outside of our brains why are cardinals red and blue jays blue? Why are roses red and violets blue?
How we perceive the effect is immaterial. It is the effect that is being described. Ultimately everything we can describe is a result of how we perceive it, which is what I think you are really saying, but that is a matter of linguistics not essence. I we were able to perceive a different spectrum we would have different words.
-
You still don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to make it any more simple for you.
Wavelength exists, but wavelength is not colour. Light has no colour, all it has is wavelength. Colour is something our brains invented in order to describe different wavelengths. Does that help?
-
I am afraid I cannot concur as your words are something our brains invented to describe what we can perceive and therefor they have no meaning outside our brains.
I just do not agree with your analysis. Color is defined by its wavelength. And your arguments imply that nothing exists outside of our brains and since you are outside of my brain you don't exist and I am talking to myself. And now if you don't mind, I see some nice men in white jackets and they are coming to take me away ha ha he he ho ho.
-
I am afraid I cannot concur as your words are something our brains invented to describe what we can perceive and therefor they have no meaning outside our brains.
I just do not agree with your analysis. Color is defined by its wavelength. And your arguments imply that nothing exists outside of our brains and since you are outside of my brain you don't exist and I am talking to myself. And now if you don't mind, I see some nice men in white jackets and they are coming to take me away ha ha he he ho ho.
My arguments are not as you describe. Nowhere have I said that "nothing exists outside of our brains" - that is an invention of your own. I find it hard to believe that you aren't playing dumb just to cause trouble, but I'll ignore that possibility and humour you.
Colour does not exist outside of our brains. Wavelength does exist outside of our brains. Colour is how the brain interprets wavelength. Wavelength does not have colour, colour is simply something our brain associates with wavelength.
I really don't know how I can dumb this down any further.
-
Color is defined by its wavelength.
Take this sentance and turn it around. Wavelength is defined by its colour. Its colour does not come into existence untill these wavelengths are intercepted by an eye. Simple.
-
The statement wavelength is defined by its color is not correct, and is needlessly solipsistic. Color is the result of the wavelength as interpreted by the eye, but the condition that allows color to be interpreted to begin with is independent of the eye.
-
The statement wavelength is defined by its color is not correct, and is needlessly solipsistic. Color is the result of the wavelength as interpreted by the eye, but the condition that allows color to be interpreted to begin with is independent of the eye.
Without the brain, colour would not exist, but wavelength would.
-
The statement wavelength is defined by its color is not correct, and is needlessly solipsistic. Color is the result of the wavelength as interpreted by the eye, but the condition that allows color to be interpreted to begin with is independent of the eye.
Without the brain, colour would not exist, but wavelength would.
It's the old... do you hear the sound of a tree fall if no one is around to hear it.
Would you see the color of red paint, if no human were around.
I think the color red does exist, even if it exists only in our mind, it exists.
You and i both agree, we see red, and our reality of red is the color we see.
And we both agree, it exists, only in the head.
Would you like to know what else only exists in our heads?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Justice, love, morality, mercy, freedom and a plethera of other emotions and ideas.
So don't think, if it exists in our head, but isn't tangible outside it, that it doesn't exist.
I can quite easily say, all those emotions exist, even if some of them are the result of chemical reactions.
I can't say though, morality, is the result of chemical reactions.
Morality would actually be, you working against your chemical reactions.
Against your inner evils, inherent in all humans, rising above them, through your ethics and morals.
So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.
~~Datruth
-
So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.
~~Datruth
I agree with you somewhat but i think colour exists more (dont ask me how that works cos i dont know) than the other examples because it is somthing that our five senses react to rather than something purely in our head.
-
So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.
~~Datruth
I agree with you somewhat but i think colour exists more (dont ask me how that works cos i dont know) than the other examples because it is somthing that our five senses react to rather than something purely in our head.
We react to wavelengths of light. We do not react to colour because colour does not exist outside of our brains.
I'm leaving this thread. Have fun kids.
-
So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.
~~Datruth
I agree with you somewhat but i think colour exists more (dont ask me how that works cos i dont know) than the other examples because it is somthing that our five senses react to rather than something purely in our head.
How can you honestly say that?
color as you know it is only known by that of wich you are taught, red is nothing untill you are told it is red. Our mind notices its differences but untill we are told what it is we cannot know what to call it. Comparing color to morality is like comparing apples to transmission fluid, not even close. Morality is taught to us by our parents and the people around us in our developmental years, and it is something that is felt not something that is observed. Yes I do belive some things are geneticaly passed on but not all.
-
So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.
~~Datruth
I agree with you somewhat but i think colour exists more (dont ask me how that works cos i dont know) than the other examples because it is somthing that our five senses react to rather than something purely in our head.
How can you honestly say that?
color as you know it is only known by that of wich you are taught, red is nothing untill you are told it is red. Our mind notices its differences but untill we are told what it is we cannot know what to call it. Comparing color to morality is like comparing apples to transmission fluid, not even close. Morality is taught to us by our parents and the people around us in our developmental years, and it is something that is felt not something that is observed. Yes I do belive some things are geneticaly passed on but not all.
So... we both... are taught, color and morality..... they are soo different... i agree ::|
Nothing is known, untill we are taught it, i don't get your piont...., we wouldn't even know what to call light, or the sun, if we weren't taught it.
Justice wouldn't be known as justice if we weren't taught it.
We learn everything.
But i know what you mean, morality, some things are inherently wrong.
No one is born with the desire to kill.
So i understand your point to a degree.
But i have to say, color exists, we both agree on it, although it isn't tangible, it exists, just as morality, justice, truth, and a plethera of other ideals and emotions, exist.
Things don't have to be tangible to be real.
For me to percieve it, understand it, and share this understanding with Billions of people, who agree this color is red... should mean something.
And it does, it means that it exists.
I'm sorry, but i'm not going to be argueing the color red doesn't exist, just the fact that you are argueing over it, is a sign of its existance.
~~Datruth
-
:@#\
But i know what you mean, morality, some things are inherently wrong.
That depends on who you ask. Also, if you ask what they consider to be inherently wrong, you'll get different answers from different people. Of course, you could say "They have their math, but I have the math", but do you really want to be like that?
No one is born with the desire to kill.
... prove it.
-
It all boils down to Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat) IMO, just say all of the possible things are true until they are proved beyond doubt (which could be never), so, god exists, but he also doesn't. You are all figments of my imagination and you are all real, and im a figment of your imagination also.
I know that Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat) is actually about quantum states and probabilities but it seems (to me at least) to apply to certain aspects of this debate.
Anyway, after several thousand years of philosophy no one has yet answered any of the big questions, so I wont be holding my breath about it happening here :)
-
Color exists, light exists. If no humans (or creatures) were around, color and light would still be there, exactly the same, but they wouldn't be called color and light. It's not the same as morality. Morality is a purely human construct. It did not exist until we created it and if we were gone, it wouldn't exist anymore. The universe keeps ticking along without our intervention, and it doesn't do morality. It does do light, color, sound, and all the other things in physics that we named but did not create. Color is what we call the differences between wavelengths of light. It's there in the universe, exactly as it was before we were around to call it color, the same as it will be when we're all gone. An alien somewhere else in the universe may call it something entirely different, but IT still exists. It doesn't need humans. Justice, morality, love, etc... and purely human constructs. They did not exist before humans, and they would not exist if humans were gone, except as concepts in our books. If those books were destroyed, so to are they.
-
I would like to second swordsbane on that, my opinions and such goes much in what he wrote there... I would like to add something about colours... they are formed of light, the rainbow is formed because of a special reflection from the sun through something transparent.
While the colour on... your wall for example is not really red as you see it, if you take up some special (non-existant?) negative glasses to view negative colours with, you would see the actual colour of that particular wall, the reason why you see it's... let's say red... is because that that is what colour in the light that doesn't get thrown back into the atmosphere.
No one is born with the desire to kill.
... prove it.
This is true, humans are not predators from nature therefore it isn't born with the desire to kill, we only get born with our instincts, the rest is taught from the world around us.
The reason why humans can and animals can't is because humans have the ability to understand. We understood that fire was hot, we understood that a tree was harder than our fist so we could easiler defend ourselves against those trying to kill us.
:)
-
the reason why you see it's... let's say red... is because that that is what colour in the light that doesn't get thrown back into the atmosphere.
That should be the other way around mate, the colour we see is the one that does get reflected and doesnt get absorbed.
-
I can't say though, morality, is the result of chemical reactions.
Morality would actually be, you working against your chemical reactions.
Against your inner evils, inherent in all humans, rising above them, through your ethics and morals.
So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.
~~Datruth
Morality is not actually working against chemical reactions. We have the chemical reaction of guilt and shame when we do something that is not approved by people that matter to us. It just happens that the fear of that reaction works over our greed in some if not most people of the civilised world.
-
Humans are animals. That's science. Not much time ago (as far as geological time is concerned) there weren't human beings. Did spirits exist back then? If they did, they're nothing special, just another fact waiting to be uncovered. Human mind will adapt to anything reasonable. Two centuries ago telepathy was unthink of. Currently information travels everywhere.
Feelings and perceptions are not exclusive to humans. That's scientific as well. Animals can have fun, they can be sad and they can even take drugs. They can love and hate too.
Morality, and everything else we give concept to, is a method devised by our common conscious to develop our kind. It probably sprouted out of rituals ancestors who survived preformed. Like drinking tea and alcohol became a tradition in china and europe respectively. People did it because they felt it was right. Actually, it saved them from getting sick with fecal bacteria.
-
You could say that morality is something invented by the ambitious to aid in controlling the masses. It certainly seems like the "immoral" rise to the top of every sector of society. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs and you cannot reach the top without hosing people on your way. It is called politics.
-
But anyway, how many people can rationaly say that there are spirits. People can have hullucinations. I can't remember where it was said but it was said somewhere recently in a same sort of discussion. People on cocaine experience bugs in their skin. Is that real? No. I can rationaly say I am not a homo sexual. Wait! Must be PC in my examples :P I can rationaly say that I am not a homo/hetro sexual. I can present evidence.
[Removed off-topic part of post. --Karyuu]
back when i lived in arkansas we lived on a piece of land where an old massacre had occured. we were in the living room and we were watching a ghost story and my mom started talking about how my aunt-uncle had a ouija (sp?) board, and then suddenly the tv turned off...and when i climbed onto my moms lap and asked if our house was haunted, the ceiling fan just somehow fell and crashed right next to me.
not to mention the house had its own private cemertary, family plot or whatever.
so, yeha...i beleive in spirits...
-
My great uncle didn't believe in spirits. He's dead now so he learned his lesson.
-
Heh. Once, when I was a kid, I was at my class speaking of football with my mates and teacher. I got up to tell teacher how my team, Porto, rocked. You know those fluorescent lights? It fell right on the table I was, crashing into thousands of sharp shards. Maybe the spirits from dead Porto football players helped me. Or it was sheer luck.
-
I would like to second swordsbane on that, my opinions and such goes much in what he wrote there... I would like to add something about colours... they are formed of light, the rainbow is formed because of a special reflection from the sun through something transparent.
The point is that the rainbow has no colour. It's colourless. Colour only exists in our brain as a way of describing to our conciousness what it is we are seeing, and all we are seeing are light waves of different wavelengths.
Color exists, light exists. If no humans (or creatures) were around, color and light would still be there, exactly the same, but they wouldn't be called color and light.
Colour is a creation of the brain. No brains, no colour.
-
No brains, no justice, no brains, no love, no brains, no mercy.
My point is zanzibar, you agree it exists in our brains, that should be enough for you to say it exists, period.
So it's not tangible, some of the greatest things in life arn't tangible.
~~Datruth
-
No brains, no justice, no brains, no love, no brains, no mercy.
My point is zanzibar, you agree it exists in our brains, that should be enough for you to say it exists, period.
So it's not tangible, some of the greatest things in life arn't tangible.
~~Datruth
*sigh*
Do you remember why I brought colour up? It was to demonstrate that people think of things in certain absolute terms despite it not at all being true. People think of redsocks as being red and having redness, but redness is simply the brain's way of percieving a certain wavelength of light. However, people don't think in those terms and it even seems silly and nonsensical to them. It's a demonstration of how important and meaningful assumptions are in terms of describing the world around them.
If you assume that god exists and that god has a certain nature, and that god is all knowing and all powerful, then you can very easily form a system of belief which is completely immune to any sort of challenge. It's logically sound - because logic itself is simply a process of finding conclusions from a set of assumptions. With spirits, the same applies. It's about assumptions which are not testable.
It might seem silly to believe in something that you cannot test, but everyone does it without exception. Every single human being believes in at least something they can't prove. And that's why I brought up the example of colour.
-
But we can with our sences percieve evidence of the wavelengths of light. We can percieve evidence of everything we 'know' exists. How can you logically assert that something exists just because you decree that it needs no explanation?
-
But we can with our sences percieve evidence of the wavelengths of light. We can percieve evidence of everything we 'know' exists. How can you logically assert that something exists just because you decree that it needs no explanation?
You can't. But it is done all the time.
-
Thats what I mean. No logical person would believe half of this tripe and yet so many do just because they're told it. Why should we let people live in ignorance and claim things that they can't explain are gods/spirits/angels/dead relatives when there are really beautifuly simple explanations for them in science.
-
But we can with our sences percieve evidence of the wavelengths of light. We can percieve evidence of everything we 'know' exists. How can you logically assert that something exists just because you decree that it needs no explanation?
You're assuming that your senses are a source of truth.
If you want me to prove logically that God exists, then here you go:
P1 If intuition tells me God exists, then God exists.
P2 Intuition tells me God exists.
C God exists.
Now, you might not agree with the premises, but the system itself is 100% logically sound.
-
P1 If intuition tells me that I must make a blood sacrifice of two goats to appease the faries in my back garden otherwise the world will explode then its true.
P2 Intuition tells me that I must make a blood sacrifice of two goats to appease the faries in my back garden otherwise the world will explode.
C I must make a blood sacrifice of two goats to appease the faries in my back garden otherwise the world will explode.
There. A great example of logical reasoning.
-
Thats what I mean. No logical person would believe half of this tripe and yet so many do just because they're told it. Why should we let people live in ignorance and claim things that they can't explain are gods/spirits/angels/dead relatives when there are really beautifuly simple explanations for them in science.
omg, we've already discussed this parallo lol.
You can't force your beliefs on others.
Look at history, when has "ENLIGHTENING" anyone helped?
Slavery in America, Destruction of the indians, Conversion of the mexicans, the crusades, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF CASES where people forced their beliefs on others.
It never turns out well.
If you have the truth, than speak about, and be done, be content with yourself.
That richard dawkins guy is opening up a can of worms when he openly attacks religion, and says in his own video he's funding research to see when religion is most susceptible in childs brains.
Please, Don't enlighten anyone, you might 100% right, and i could be totally wrong, but if we're both going to die and be forgotten, What's this need to start wars and arguments.
Clasp my hand, join us ignorant god fearing foke, and lets change the world for the better, get rid of Aids in africa, stop genocide in darfur, fix Iraq, and a MILLION other problems.
Then once our world is rid of problems... probably never, maybe you can enlighten us then.
~~Datruth
-
This, as you so eloquently put it, "Enligtening" is actually called education. It helps people everyday.
-
P1 If intuition tells me that I must make a blood sacrifice of two goats to appease the faries in my back garden otherwise the world will explode then its true.
P2 Intuition tells me that I must make a blood sacrifice of two goats to appease the faries in my back garden otherwise the world will explode.
C I must make a blood sacrifice of two goats to appease the faries in my back garden otherwise the world will explode.
There. A great example of logical reasoning.
Exactly! \\o//
-
You baffle me.
-
You baffle me.
Logic is simply a process that guides you in moving to conclusions from a set of premises or assumptions. A system can be completely logical even if it's based on false premises.
-
Logic is simply a process that guides you in moving to conclusions from a set of premises or assumptions. A system can be completely logical even if it's based on false premises.
Logic is the art of differentiating between rational and flawed arguments. What you said is not logic.
-
Logic itself per se is not so easily defined. Not that I am taking anybody's side here.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Alogic&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
-
The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments.
Logic is the art of differentiating between rational and flawed arguments.
-
Both examples are sound arguments, however the premises they're based on are questionable. The arguments themselves though are completely one hundred percent logically sound.
Here's more from that wiki article, which I recomend you read if you still don't understand:
* Soundness, which means that the system's rules of derivation will never let you infer anything false, so long as you start with only true premises. So if a system is sound (and its axioms, if any, are true), then the theorems of a sound formal system are the truths. All of the theorems of a system that has no axioms are its truths and sometimes the truths of such a system are called 'logical truths.' (Note that if a system is not consistent, it cannot be sound. This is because a contradiction is always false, so if two theorems contradict at least one is false.)
-
So you agree that its not sound logic? Thats what I ment.
-
So you agree that its not sound logic? Thats what I ment.
No, it is sound logic. That's the whole point! You can have a logical conclusion deduced from false premises!
-
But its not reasonable to think that your intuition is a place to look for true premises. You have just brought up a slight misuse of a word which would commonly be acceptabe and derailed an entire thread. Congratulations :P
-
But its not reasonable to think that your intuition is a place to look for true premises. You have just brought up a slight misuse of a word which would commonly be acceptabe and derailed an entire thread. Congratulations :P
Basically, what he was trying to say was
The premise, the facts you start out with, are wrong.
Your logical deduction, the process you went about trying to prove it was correct.
But if you start out with the wrong premise, such as anytime you subtract a number, you add it to.
Thus, 2 - 2 = 2.
The process, i did that, was correct. Subtracted 2, added 2.
But my premise was wrong, when you subtract a number, YOU DO NOT ADD IT, that is another operation altogether.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The facts you started out with were wrong.
The way you proved them, was right.
I can't get it any simpler than that.
~~Datruth
-
Yes, yes I know. Theres no need to make it any simpler.
-
Another reason why i think color exists, is that NOTHING is absolute.
Zanzibar cannot name a single thing, that is situational in some way, as color and our brain is.
So why hate color? Just because it only exists in our brains?
It's not like, everything else in this world, is absolutely known.
~~Datruth
-
"NOTHING is absolute" is an absolute statement.
-
"NOTHING is absolute" is an absolute statement.
You beat me to it.:)
Anyway, all I wanted to do was make a comment on the nature of what people believe to be absolute objective reality.
-
"NOTHING is absolute" is an absolute statement.
Yes, it's an absolute statement, made in a limited world.
Everything we percieve is seen through a frame of reference, which in itself is flawed.
We also have Heisenberg's uncertinty principle, to interact with something forever changes it.
Backed up by chaos theory, showing very minute changes can cause HUGE change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So working off the framework that nothing is absolute, not anything we percieve anyways, i deduced color must exist.
Because, even though color is inherently faulty, by only existing in our minds, so is every other object deduced by us in this world.
Basically, drunk man's talk, we have to let color join our group, because the same fault he has, is had by everything we observe.
So it only exists in our brains.
Doesn't everything?
We know nothing absolutely.
And that was my point :)
/me bows
~~Datruth
-
So working off the framework that nothing is absolute, not anything we percieve anyways, i deduced color must exist. Because, even though color is inherently faulty, by only existing in our minds, so is every other object deduced by us in this world.
Your reasoning sounds flowery, but it makes no sense.
Edit: The post below this one is a good one.
-
The universe is not limited, man's perception of the universe is limited. Solipsism is egocentrism become rationalization, not reason. No different than ancient people's belief that the universe revolved around them.
Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has everything to do with the observation and measurement of particles in applied quantum mechanics, and nothing to do with philosophy.
If you have a problem with that statement then actually study Hisenberg's work, a basic reading in the history of science by Sagan, various published applications of quantum theory models by damn near everybody from Einstein to Hawking, and follow it up with the lectures of Richard Feynman.
The actuality of conditions that cause light to be changed by materials in the world has nothing to do with you perceiving it or not. This is measureable, it is demonstrable, it is elementary.
Eldoth cracks a beer, puts down the spectroscope, and goes back to measuring stellar parallax on his spiffy new theodolite. He does not bow, as he can take no credit for any of this and would be mortified to do so.
-
Hey there eldoth, watch your red-shift..you might phase into the ultraviolet! Take care not to get too close to that gravity lens or your head might swell!
-
Eldoth winks, "Too late!" :D
Eldoths head being to streched and englongated as he is sucked down the iridescent gravity well of a million scintillating colors to the Hell of Unrepentant Rationalists.
"Oh, heya Zanz, what are ya doing ...?"
-
The universe is not limited, man's perception of the universe is limited. Solipsism is egocentrism become rationalization, not reason. No different than ancient people's belief that the universe revolved around them.
Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has everything to do with the observation and measurement of particles in applied quantum mechanics, and nothing to do with philosophy.
If you have a problem with that statement then actually study Hisenberg's work, a basic reading in the history of science by Sagan, various published applications of quantum theory models by damn near everybody from Einstein to Hawking, and follow it up with the lectures of Richard Feynman.
The actuality of conditions that cause light to be changed by materials in the world has nothing to do with you perceiving it or not. This is measureable, it is demonstrable, it is elementary.
Eldoth cracks a beer, puts down the spectroscope, and goes back to measuring stellar parallax on his spiffy new theodolite. He does not bow, as he can take no credit for any of this and would be mortified to do so.
If man's perception of the universe is limited, how do you know the universe isn't limited?
Your own perception says so.
You cannot tell me the universe, is absolute, in any sense.
Let's define that term, absolute:
Not constrained by, Time, matter, or space.
Or:
free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:
b. something that is independent of some or all relations.
c. something that is perfect or complete.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now let's define some of your terms, so i can try and break down what you said, being as i didn't understand your second sentance:
Solipsism:
Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
egocentrism:
having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things
rationalization
to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
Reason:
sound judgment; good sense.
to think or argue in a logical manner.
Let's look at your sentance again now:
Solipsism is egocentrism become rationalization, not reason.
The theory, that only the self exists, is regarding the self as the center of everything, become rationalization (i still don't understand that)
not sound judgement and good sense.
Even when broken down into its simplest parts, i don't get it...
I guess you can restate, hopefully in another, more coherent, manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then you go on saying, the Uncertainty Principle, has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with observation.
What people choose to add to philosophy, is their choice, you can't exclude Hisenberg's findings, saying they were just observation.
You never know if something has a bigger meaning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case in point, you can't say, the universe is absolute, when our perception of it is limited.
We can't know anything absolutely.
That's why color exists.
So working off the framework that nothing is absolute, not anything we percieve anyways, i deduced color must exist.
Because, even though color is inherently faulty, by only existing in our minds, so is every other object deduced by us in this world.
Basically, drunk man's talk, we have to let color join our group, because the same fault he has, is had by everything we observe.
So it only exists in our brains.
Doesn't everything?
We know nothing absolutely.
And that was my point
So why not add color, to the millions of other things we percieve, but don't know exist absolutely.
Wouldn't it be unfair to exclude it, and say it's only the workings of the mind, When EVERYTHING is the workings of the mind.
~~Datruth
-
Even when broken down into its simplest parts, i don't get it...
You are correct.