Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.
|
Copyright © OmniNerd 2004-2008 OmniNerd uses valid, standards-based markup.
Maximize enjoyment with a standards-compliant browser. |
RSS
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
Actually, it is not question begging, but a debate about what underlying assumptions are valid when providing evidence...
So, if they do exist, then we must conjecture that we cannot as of yet measure the effects they have on the world. But, again, lack of evidence does not indicate that they do not exist.
The arbitrary manner of the assertion of their existence and the arbitrary manner in which properties are attributed to them is sufficient warrant for their summary dismissal due to being entirely irrational. Any random statement I make about the world has [as far as I know] the possibility of being true as long as it isn't an explicit contradiction. That is to say, what I happen to know or not doesn't influence the case but I might be right in any given claim by 1) sheer coincidence and 2) the fact that propositions have meanining outside the intentions of their utterer.
So if the context of my discovery is non-existent, i.e. I am making claims at random or based on wish fulfillment, there is no reason to put any value at all in my claim.
'God is a loving God!'
'Why?'
'Because that's how I want Him to be.'
Given that I am not omniscient I can't even know if He exists sans experience of him, any claim I make about whether or not he's a happy or angry god is arbitrary due to lack of experience. If you have no experience of god and I am claiming no experience of god, then any claims I make about god's nature should be summarily rejected by you as irrational for being arbitrary.
I, like you, distrust the ethics of the supernatural. Its basis is dubious at best. But, as the hard evidence indicates a null result, there is a third option in weighing their claims: withhold judgement, which is the logical, and scientifically sound, thing to do. That does not mean I believe their claims, but it is a well reasoned stance.
Do you really withold judgement on any claim for which you have no evidence in support of at the moment?
Unable to be experienced? I did not mean to imply that. It may be possible for such an entity to exist outside of what we currently define as being physical and still interact with it. Nothing bars that from happening, as it would be outside of our current experience. But, only in this case could you begin to discuss it.
Your evidence that anything exists which is not physical, immaterial, spiritual is what? Your evidence that this non-physical substance can interact in some manner with the physical is what? Both assertions are perfectly arbitrary. You have no evidence [I assume] in their favor whatsoever.
I therefore reject the claim for being irrational; it is not an identification of reality whatsoever so your epistemic method at the least is invalid. Despite the fact that I cannot negate your existential claim of possibility [which is equivalent in function to demanding I prove a hypothetical universal claim] I believe rejecting arbitrary claims is the proper response so long as one continues to hold rational identification of the world as a benchmark of properly dealing with the world.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with imperfect knowledge, so which allows us to discuss what they may be like. These discussions can be self-consistent and logical, but without knowledge of an entities lack of existence, the truth of an existential statement must admit a third value: unkown.
Having done a bit of work with a three value logical system, I don't think we need an unknown value for any work we need to do. We can simply say the truth value of a given statement is currently undetermined, and preserve our two value system, rather than institute a three value system.
Arguing from an empirical point of view, think Hume, it is possible to establish knowledge of what is beyond one's experience.
I was ambiguous here apparently, I meant beyond ken as in, unable to be experienced in principle. Evidently you do not think that non-physical means that. Kant, on the other hand, thought the noumenon was unable to be experienced; I thought that was perhaps your contention as well given your comments on the Divine.
For instance, I know for a fact that dragons do not exist,
I think this is inconsistent with your strong agnostic view. You only know for a fact that you have not found any dragons to date and the fossil record won't support their existence to date. I don't think you can prove the negated existential that not at least one western-style, four legged, winged dragon exists to be true.
but I can reasonably discuss them in the context of what I already know and understand. I can tell you which piece of dragon art has a truer depiction of what a real dragon (western, four legs, wings) must look like based upon established knowledge. Their lack of existence does not prevent such a discussion. In the case of a deity, this is more problematic, but the idea is the same.
What you will be discussing above are the most commonly agreed upon characteristics of a fictive entity in some given community. You aren't discussing the non-existent properties of something that is not an object of your experience. Discussing the popular cultural depiction of a dragon doesn't sound to me like "establishing knowledge of what is beyond one's experience." The object of experience is the body of mythology you reference when judging the art.
I actually was pointing out that this particular infinite regression has existed for a very long time, and does not look like it is going away. A different question that exists in physics, with similar logical obsurdities, is where did the universe come from? It is more subtle than the Prime Mover question, but it leads to many of the same questions.
Neither of which can be answered from one's armchair. I think both are empirical questions, that if ever answered, will be answered by science and not a priori reasoning. I deny the category of synthetic a priori reasoning is legitimate.
I would like to understand what you believe is self-contradictory about the concept of the Divine. Some of it I can glean from you initial, and other, postings, but I would like it spelled out.
Non-material existence is arbitrarily asserted on behalf of most deities. Unless you posit a non-material sense organ, the non-material is in principle unable to be experienced. Refusing to multiply entities unnecessarily deals with the issue handily.
At least by many, deities are attributed with properties, namely omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, that contradict the law of identity.
The concept of divine miracles implies action through no particular means except God's will. This implies idealism, that the nature of entities is extrinsically determined by God or that everything is contained in God's mind. This contradicts the basic experience of consciousness. Awareness is always awareness of something; awareness is not primary, it is a relationship of subject and object. Without both there is no awareness. The implication of this is that subject and object exist independently of one another. The nature of the relata determines the result of their interaction, i.e. the relata exist independently, subject and object have intrinsic natures and therefore idealism is false [not all things are contained within God's mind].
One of the most amusing points I have regarding design, is that complexity arises naturally from simple systems.
If complexity implies design, is God simple? Better yet, one could only know complexity implied design through experience by reference to simple things not being designed and complex things being designed. The ID creationist claims everything is designed by a god and that complexity is the proof of it; what do they use as a point of comparison?
The things people should be looking for as "proof" that the universe is designed is that the design is whether or not the design is simple and its ability to produce emergent behavior at increasingly larger scales. Personally, I find the "design" of the universe to be somewhat simple, and it scales to large structures quite well. Is it designed? Who cares. I don't have to factor it into my equations for them to come out correctly, so it does not matter.
It matters in that the ethical implications of religion are purported to follow from accepting that not only a god exists, but that the particular god of whatever creationist exists. Actually I find intentionally designed worlds like MMORPGS to be significantly simpler than the world that apparently does not need an intentional designer to perpetuate. I'd say simplicity implies design.
View Full Discussion