🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
> >> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
<snip>
> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I
have
> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own
> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes
to
> my benefit.
>

Ah.  The two are not related.  If you are indifferent to other people's
beliefs, you most certainly don't want to change them.  However, as you
stated previously, you would be just as happy to have them believe what they
do, so you can exploit them.  Hence, whether you want to change them or not,
you most certainly care what they are.

> >> >>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You're kidding, right?
> >>
> >> No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of
my
> >> claim, right?
> >>
> >No.  Impirical evidence is pretty good proof generally accepted in just
> >about any intellectual discipline; including science.
>
> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology,
but
> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>
So?  Without it, it is virtually impossible to formulate a proof, and with
it, one can discount a proof since only one exception is required to
invalidate a law.

>
> >> You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on
the
> >> planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you
> >feel
> >> like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting
that
> >as a
> >> 'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how
> >they
> >> make you feel, just like I am.
> >>
> >Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
> >figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
>
> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
>

He might be.  But we can't say it for sure.  We have no proof.

>
> >
> >I don't cling to my beliefs because of how they make me feel at all, but
> >because any attempt to explain the world around me satisfactorily and
with
> >one consistent set of reasons or causes, escapes me.
>
> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.

You, nor anyone else, knows that.  And there are a good many scientists who
have been searching for it for a long time.

> The closest
> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the
self.
> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely
wildly
> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...

Except that that is not what Descarte said, and he was not measuring the
self against anything. What Descarte said was, "I think, therefore I exist".
What Descarte was doing was trying to separate the mind from the body.  His
proof was somewhat successful.  However, the problem was that he couldn't
state where this mind was.  Descarte was religious and his Meditations on
First Philosophy (from which that quote comes from) was the attempt of a
mathematician to merge science and religion.  Descartes believed in the soul
and he believed that the only essential truth we could know, was the
existence of ourselves and God.  If you want to quote it further, you should
proably read the work first.

The difficulty, in the modern sense, with Descartes' conclusions, is that
they muddy an already unclear picture of what it means to bring forth life
and what it means to die.  He also muddied the picture of what it means to
be human and it is in direct contradiction to our preception of the world
around us.  For Descartes, the entire world could be an illusion and the
only thing he could state for sure was that he exists.  He doesn't say that
he is alive, nor does he say he is dead.  His existence is irrelevant for
either state since his life, or his death, would simply be another illusion
preceived by imperfect senses and coloured by perception of those imperfect
senses.  That is what Descartes said, and attempted to prove.
>
>
> >If I could show that the universe happened by accident, I could
> >accept that there is no God.  However, it is far too orderly to have been
by
> >accident.
>
> See I get the impression you really don't have much experience with this
> subject because you should know that this is William Paley's Natural
Theology
> theory, which is very easy to refute as the 'Blind Watchmaker' excerise
> demonstrates.  As Dawkins sums it up succinctly; "a deity capable of
> engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either
instantaneously
> or by guiding evolution, ...must already have been vastly complex in the
first
> place..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering
an
> explanation.""
>
>
So?  Since, if there actually is a deity, one cannot know the nature of it,
since one cannot even prove or disprove its existence, it could be
infinitely simple, or infinitely complex.  In addition, most of the universe
is pretty simple; we can boil it down to a very simple set of laws,
behaviours, particles and energy.  It is the scale of it that makes it
complex.  Because of its scale, the entire entity called the universe, is
beyond our comprehension.  We can't concieve of it all at once, even if we
can describe the concepts.

> >But, if I could state that the universe was by design, I could
> >accept that as proof of a God.  However, it is far too random for that
too.
>
> I don't see what that proves.  Maybe god likes randomness (but apparently
not
> very much since it only occurs on the subatomic level).
>

At the subatomic level, there is apparent randomness. However, since we
don't know all of the variables, we can't even say that it is completely
random.  We can only use the apparent randomness to calculate the
possibility that some event will occur in the absence of any knowledge of
what happened to create the observed state.

Given that, accidents can be calculated with probability, but not with
certainty.  Consequently, what you just said is that the ordering of the
universe was no accident.  If that is the case, you are making and arguement
for something to enforce that order.  I don't guess that is your intent at
all.

>
> >Also the limit of our ability to sense beyond a certain point and the
many
> >mysteries of even our own consciousness that defy explanations, does not
> >allow me to rule out God either.
>
> Then you should not rule out the possibility that Arnold Schwartzenegger
is
> god, and you should consider that possibility to be equally as possible as
any
> other conception of god you might be able to imagine.
>
I would be willing to bet Arny isn't God.  But, you're right, there is no
way to rule it out either.  But, you are still making a case for a God, not
against one.
>
> >To the contrary.  I have never once used the word agnostic in this entire
> >thread.  You did.  I have never claimed to be an agnostic at all.  Again,
> >since an agnostic DOES believe in God but simply pratices no religion, I
> >would say you are a little shy on that definition too.
>
> That is not, in any sense, a valid definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticsm
does
> not require a belief or disbelief in god.  In it's original sense, when
the
> term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, it meant "the philosophical and
> theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either
unknown,
> or inherently unknowable. ".  That definition of agnostic is a definition
I
> have no problem with, and I fall under that definition, and I believe
everyone
> else does too, whether they know it or not.  The newer definition of
agnostic
> which is what you've been describing yourself as, is used to describe
those who
> are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and
> other matters of religions.  So for example, I have no problem saying "I
am
> agnostic", but I'm definately not AN agnostic, as in one who places is
faith IN
> agnosticism.  Whether you want to call yourself an agnostic or not, by
saying
> that your faith hinges on your inability to know, you are classifying
yourself
> by the definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticism is faith in non-faith,
therefore
> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as
a
> component of their faith.
>
>
Fine.  You defined me as an agnostic.  Consequently, I have to assume you
meant that in the modern context.  However, since you have clarified that, I
have no faith in a non-faith at all.  The point is that I don't have faith
in the existence of a deity in the conventional sense, nor do I have faith
that a deity does not exist.  In fact, I generally don't accept anything in
the absence of proof.  By proof in this case, I don't need absolute proof as
with the examples of flying off of a bridge; just a reasonable indication of
the truth or falsity of something.

> >> >Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
brain
> >> >activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
> >some
> >> >consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >>
> >> What evidence are you referring to?
> >>
> >>
> >Pain.  The body will respond to pain (ie. touching a hot burner) before
the
> >brain can even register the sensation.
>
> Yeah I've studied that sort of thing extensively.  The key is what it
means to
> 'register the sensation'.  If there is an immediate danger the brain seems
to
> know that there isn't time to process the stimuli in a conscious manner,
so it
> does it unconsciously, so that it can happen much quicker.  In fact there
are
> cases were people will hear a voice commanding them to duck or whatever is
> required to avoid an immediate danger when there isn't time to activate
the
> 'internal dialog'.  But of course, even if this explaination turns out to
be
> wrong, there's no reason to believe a supernatural explaination will
replace it
> as a better explaination.
>
>
Not talking about "supernatural" phenomenon.  There are plenty of life forms
that have no brain and can respond to their environments.  This indicates a
'conciousness' of sorts, without even the presence of a brain.

Even with a brain, studies of twins indicate that it is not all metabolic.
If it was, genetically identical twins with genetically identical brains
should have identical responses to external stimuli.  They don't.

> >> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
> >> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
> >> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or
adequately,
> >like
> >> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
> >jupiter
> >> smoking cosmic crack?

To the contrary.  There are many concepts that cannot be grasped
intellectually, but can be described in words.  Infinity (even more
contradictory, negative infinity as a math concept) cannot be concieved of,
but can be described.

> >>
> >
> >How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
>
> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you
don't
> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the
more
> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered
all
> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
>
>
You didn't define will, nor did you explain it except as a circular
argument.

>
>
> >
> >> > Also, the amount of information that we
> >> >process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
> >> >produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).
> >>
> >> Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.
> >>
> >Simply because I am not understood doesn't make me an idiot.
>
> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to
transfer
> units of information into units of energy?
>
Volts, Amps, and Ohms.  The brain works on electrical activity as well as
chemical states.

>
> >>
> >> Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own
> >opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >Precisely.  That statement alone proves most of the things I have been
> >saying.
> >
>
> I think it proves most of the things I have been saying.
>

I don't think so.