Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

Discussions on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Spinozasgalt, reddix

Post a reply

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

 
 
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#181  Postby Matthew Shute » Jan 18, 2012 11:48 am

Cito di Pense  wrote:We know sense data can be unreliable, which is why we scientists so like instrumentation. Then we have to deal with the problem of dropping the primacy of our 'own' perceptions and logix, and start dealing with other observers. Kerman has this problem, too, come to that. Perception is so subjective that we cannot trust other observers at all. It's a way out, but that is solipsism for you.


Indeed, an escape into tragic batshit and balderdash: "It's all a dream. I'll 'wake up' and realise that I'm God, soon. One day. Soon."
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 778
Age: 33
Male

Antarctica (aq)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#182  Postby Matthew Shute » Jan 18, 2012 11:57 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:There's not even a hint of "orchestration of experience" which you can point us to.


No, of course not. It's arrived at by pure logix, which we must prefer over sense experience. Why? Because we can be certain of our logix. Gödel-damned is our Kurt reply.


Now I'm waiting for a... Why The Incompleteness Theorem is Useless in Philosophy ...thread.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 778
Age: 33
Male

Antarctica (aq)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#183  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 18, 2012 11:58 am

Matthew Shute wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:There's not even a hint of "orchestration of experience" which you can point us to.


No, of course not. It's arrived at by pure logix, which we must prefer over sense experience. Why? Because we can be certain of our logix. Gödel-damned is our Kurt reply.


Now I'm waiting for a... Why The Incompleteness Theorem is Useless in Philosophy ...thread.


jamest wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
jamest wrote:
jamest wrote:Sensations is all that we got.


You contradict yourself. You also say we haz 'logix'. Make up your fucking mind about what 'all' consists of. Matt and I agree that barfing up 'the unperceived' to set off against 'the perceived' is not a wicked feat of, um, logix.

Ya, ve av logik too... but there's an ontological distinction between the sensations and logic. One is integral to existence, whereas the other is merely an ability which facilitates awareness/understanding of it (nobody would say that logic is an entity).


Yep. So how's it going with the whole program to make philosophy mathematically-useful? Any traction there, yet?
The squirming facts exceed the squamous mind
and yet, relation appears

-- Wallace Stevens, Conoisseur of Chaos
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Posts: 9723

Country: Tod und Feuer
Switzerland (ch)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#184  Postby jamest » Jan 18, 2012 12:20 pm

In the near future, I can see that I'm going to have to start a thread which deals with such concerns. This thread isn't the right place, nor is now the right time. Have a little patience.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
jamest
 
Name: I cannot say
Posts: 5481
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#185  Postby jamest » Jan 18, 2012 12:22 pm

Matthew Shute wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:There's not even a hint of "orchestration of experience" which you can point us to.


No, of course not. It's arrived at by pure logix, which we must prefer over sense experience. Why? Because we can be certain of our logix. Gödel-damned is our Kurt reply.


Now I'm waiting for a... Why The Incompleteness Theorem is Useless in Philosophy ...thread.

You're learning from my endeavours, it seems. :tongue:
They came, they saw, they concurred.
jamest
 
Name: I cannot say
Posts: 5481
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#186  Postby Matthew Shute » Jan 18, 2012 12:37 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Yep. So how's it going with the whole program to make philosophy mathematically-useful? Any traction there, yet?


I'm not sure. I'm looking into whether the philosophy of humour could be useful in physics: a little levity eases the gravity.

jamest wrote:In the near future, I can see that I'm going to have to start a thread which deals with such concerns.


Thank God.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 778
Age: 33
Male

Antarctica (aq)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#187  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 18, 2012 1:55 pm

jamest wrote:my endeavours


Matthew Shute wrote:Indeed, an escape into tragic batshit and balderdash: "It's all a dream. I'll 'wake up' and realise that I'm God, soon. One day. Soon."
The squirming facts exceed the squamous mind
and yet, relation appears

-- Wallace Stevens, Conoisseur of Chaos
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Posts: 9723

Country: Tod und Feuer
Switzerland (ch)
Top

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#188  Postby Agrippina » Jan 18, 2012 6:03 pm

Oh God, we're back on the reality=God track. I'm not replying to this thread anymore.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities, has the power to make you commit injustices.
Voltaire
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 22568
Age: 101
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Top

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#189  Postby Agrippina » Jan 18, 2012 6:41 pm

There is no way to be objective about something that doesn't exist.

Can you objectively describe a fairy, or an elf, or a goblin, or a poltergeist? Of course not, because they don't exist. Therefore you cannot objectively describe or define or explain God, because there is no evidence that he exists. Except in the completely ridiculously stupid subjective explanation that God=reality.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities, has the power to make you commit injustices.
Voltaire
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 22568
Age: 101
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Top

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#190  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 19, 2012 12:25 am

The only thing that is confusing, amkerman, is your equivocation of the Abrahamic God with 'reality'.

Edited a comma on the advice of Matthew Shute. Tks.
Last edited by Onyx8 on Jan 19, 2012 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
 
Posts: 5387
Age: 55
Male

Canada (ca)
Top

Re: Wanted: A coherent definition of the Abrahamic god

#191  Postby Matthew Shute » Jan 19, 2012 2:25 pm

Onyx8 wrote:The only thing that is confusing amkerman, is your equivocation of the Abrahamic God with 'reality'.

I'm never sure that it's wise to be the pedantic grammar-policeman because I fear that people will start pointing out my own inevitable errors. Sometimes these mistakes create confusion, however. In your post it looks as though you're accusing Agrippina, above, of confusing amkerman; and so I spent a few seconds wondering why you thought Agrippina was equivocating. You just needed a comma after the word "confusing".
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 778
Age: 33
Male

Antarctica (aq)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#192  Postby Matthew Shute » Jan 19, 2012 3:39 pm

This might explain something. Look at amkerman's profile page. Among his list of favourite quotes you can find this gem:
amkerman wrote:"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand, you have failed."- St. Agustin


If you understand, you have failed!

Cito di Pense wrote:God is the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about nothing.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 778
Age: 33
Male

Antarctica (aq)
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

 
 
Top

Re: Split from Theism - The nature of reality & god.

#193  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 19, 2012 4:14 pm

Thanks Matthew, edited.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
 
Posts: 5387
Age: 55
Male

Canada (ca)
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB © 2010 rationalskepticism.org | Theme by Oliver, Green Leaf Apps.