In article <srjtls01gskdfla6o9r76shmfb0pg38…@4ax.com>,
rhar…@adel.phia.net (Richard Harlos) wrote:
[snip]
> >I think it does. If the future can be changed, then it is not set.
> >If it is not set, then it can not be known. QED. It can be
> >*predicted*, but not known.
> I’m not convinced of this at all, Frank. Perhaps I’m carrying baggage
> from my days as a christian, but I never have been able to accept this
> argument as valid.
Examine Wustner’s original argument:
‘If the xian god is omnipotent, then he can change the future. Thus
he does not know the future, and so is not omniscient.’
When Wustner says, ‘Thus [god] does not know the future, and so is not
omniscient,’ he is saying that God does not know the state of affairs
that will inevitably come to pass; for this is simply the definition of
the future in the context of foreknowledge.
Now if you substitute this same definition into the first part of the
quote, it reads, ‘If the xian god is omnipotent, then he can change the
state of affairs that will inevitably come to pass.’ Or in other
words, ‘If the xian god is omnipotent, then he can make X be not X,’
where X is ‘the state of affairs that will inevitably come to pass.’
Clearly, this is a logical contradiction. The only conclusion one may
derive from a contradiction in the form X -> Y & ~Y is that X cannot
possible be true; in this case, that would imply that God cannot be
omnipotent. And certainly, no being can be omnipotent if that word is
taken to mean the ability to do all things, even those things that are
logically impossible.
So Wustner’s argument does not say anything about the compatibility of
God’s omnipotence with God’s omniscience. All it says, albeit
unintentionally, is that it is not possible for the impossible to
occur. Which of course is obvious.
Does this disprove the existence of what Christians refer to as an
omnipotent God? That depends entirely on what Christians mean when they
call God ‘omnipotent.’ I have met only one theist who claimed this
meaning, and she was a Hindu who was persuaded in a very short time by
yours truly that such a conception of God implied that God could not
exist. All other theists I have discussed the issue with have
maintained that God’s omnipotence refers strictly to his ability do
that which is logically possible.
So the answer is that Wustner may have unintentionally disproved *a*
concept of God, but it is certainly not the one that most theists hold
to, or even the one used by most theists who believe God is omnipotent.
An interesting question to ask is, why did Wustner’s proof that
omnipotence is incompatible with omniscience fail to produce that
conclusion? The answer is obvious: Wustner is equivocating on the
term ‘future.’ When a consistent definition of ‘future’ is used in his
argument, he ends up proving something altogether different than what
he set out to prove.
The only way Wustner can make his argument ‘work’ is by employing the
fallacy of equivocation, and of course, this only makes his argument
work superficially. The fallacy of equivocation is called such for a
reason: it’s a fallacy, and no argument that uses it is valid.
[snip]
–
The Thinker
Theism: The fear of death.
Atheism: The fear of the fear of death.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
I find it amusing that you posted this in sci.logic. I wonder how many of
them will flame you.
There is no need to disprove that of which there is no evidence of
existance. I hardly need to disprove faeries. I hardly need to disprove
the easter bunny. Why should I be asked to disprove gods?
First, show real evidence that there is some thing that exists as god.
Pointing to nature, or a rock, or a chemical model, that does not prove god.
Pointing to the structure of an atom, that does not prove god. You are
claiming there is a deity, then show evidence of a deity, not evidence of
earth and people.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
The Thinker wrote:
> In article <srjtls01gskdfla6o9r76shmfb0pg38…@4ax.com>,
> rhar…@adel.phia.net (Richard Harlos) wrote:
> [snip]
> > >I think it does. If the future can be changed, then it is not set.
> > >If it is not set, then it can not be known. QED. It can be
> > >*predicted*, but not known.
> > I’m not convinced of this at all, Frank. Perhaps I’m carrying baggage
> > from my days as a christian, but I never have been able to accept this
> > argument as valid.
> Examine Wustner’s original argument:
> ‘If the xian god is omnipotent, then he can change the future. Thus
> he does not know the future, and so is not omniscient.’
> When Wustner says, ‘Thus [god] does not know the future, and so is not
> omniscient,’ he is saying that God does not know the state of affairs
> that will inevitably come to pass; for this is simply the definition of
> the future in the context of foreknowledge.
> Now if you substitute this same definition into the first part of the
> quote, it reads, ‘If the xian god is omnipotent, then he can change the
> state of affairs that will inevitably come to pass.’ Or in other
> words, ‘If the xian god is omnipotent, then he can make X be not X,’
> where X is ‘the state of affairs that will inevitably come to pass.’
> Clearly, this is a logical contradiction. The only conclusion one may
> derive from a contradiction in the form X -> Y & ~Y is that X cannot
> possible be true; in this case, that would imply that God cannot be
> omnipotent. And certainly, no being can be omnipotent if that word is
> taken to mean the ability to do all things, even those things that are
> logically impossible.
> So Wustner’s argument does not say anything about the compatibility of
> God’s omnipotence with God’s omniscience. All it says, albeit
> unintentionally, is that it is not possible for the impossible to
> occur. Which of course is obvious.
> Does this disprove the existence of what Christians refer to as an
> omnipotent God? That depends entirely on what Christians mean when they
> call God ‘omnipotent.’ I have met only one theist who claimed this
> meaning, and she was a Hindu who was persuaded in a very short time by
> yours truly that such a conception of God implied that God could not
> exist. All other theists I have discussed the issue with have
> maintained that God’s omnipotence refers strictly to his ability do
> that which is logically possible.
> So the answer is that Wustner may have unintentionally disproved *a*
> concept of God, but it is certainly not the one that most theists hold
> to, or even the one used by most theists who believe God is omnipotent.
> An interesting question to ask is, why did Wustner’s proof that
> omnipotence is incompatible with omniscience fail to produce that
> conclusion? The answer is obvious: Wustner is equivocating on the
> term ‘future.’ When a consistent definition of ‘future’ is used in his
> argument, he ends up proving something altogether different than what
> he set out to prove.
> The only way Wustner can make his argument ‘work’ is by employing the
> fallacy of equivocation, and of course, this only makes his argument
> work superficially. The fallacy of equivocation is called such for a
> reason: it’s a fallacy, and no argument that uses it is valid.
> [snip]
> —
> The Thinker
> Theism: The fear of death.
> Atheism: The fear of the fear of death.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
–
Socrates: You are wise if you admit you know nothing.
DeCartes: Only the Wise can know Anything.
Sartre: Youre an asshole if you think you are Wise.
"The Thinker" <thefreethin…@my-deja.com>
> Does this disprove the existence of what Christians refer to as an
> omnipotent God?
Disproving the existence of any god (aka. proving a negative) is nigh’
impossible. You guys should start with something easier, e.g. disproving
the existence of the tooth faerie.
>That depends entirely on what Christians mean when they
> call God ‘omnipotent.’ I have met only one theist who claimed this
> meaning, and she was a Hindu who was persuaded in a very short time by
> yours truly that such a conception of God implied that God could not
> exist. All other theists I have discussed the issue with have
> maintained that God’s omnipotence refers strictly to his ability do
> that which is logically possible. So the answer is that Wustner
> may have unintentionally disproved *a*
> concept of God, but it is certainly not the one that most theists hold
> to, or even the one used by most theists who believe God is
omnipotent.
Is your personal, anectodal experience of encounters with Christians
really representative enough to be used normatively?
> An interesting question to ask is, why did Wustner’s proof that
> omnipotence is incompatible with omniscience fail to produce that
> conclusion? The answer is obvious: Wustner is equivocating on the
> term ‘future.’ When a consistent definition of ‘future’ is used in his
> argument, he ends up proving something altogether different than what
> he set out to prove.
> The only way Wustner can make his argument ‘work’ is by employing the
> fallacy of equivocation, and of course, this only makes his argument
> work superficially. The fallacy of equivocation is called such for a
> reason: it’s a fallacy, and no argument that uses it is valid.
> [snip]
I always wondered whether any god can create a rock too heavy for him to
lift?
?how about disproving the messiah-ship of jesus
.as i hear it, the predicted jewish messiah was
supposed to liberate the jews from bondage
.jesus did not fulfill that prophecy
.therefore, he was not the awaited jewish messiah
–
Ecstatic wonder Heron Stone
is our natural state. mailto:her…@earthlink.net
Don’t settle for anything less. http://home.earthlink.net/~herons/
"heron stone" <her…@earthlink.net> wrote
> ?how about disproving the messiah-ship of jesus
> .as i hear it, the predicted jewish messiah was
> supposed to liberate the jews from bondage
> .jesus did not fulfill that prophecy
> .therefore, he was not the awaited jewish messiah
yes, it looks that way. This also was then and is now the prevailing
conclusion of the
Jews. Jesus was probably one of the many apocalyptic Jewish prophets. He
preached the "end of times" to be near, certainly within the lifetime of
his listeners. Luckily for us, his expectations turned out to be just
that.
"Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com> wrote:
> "The Thinker" <thefreethin…@my-deja.com>
> > Does this disprove the existence of what Christians refer to as an
> > omnipotent God?
> Disproving the existence of any god (aka. proving a negative) is nigh’
> impossible. You guys should start with something easier, e.g. disproving
> the existence of the tooth faerie.
Even that could be quite difficult!
Of course, the only people I have ever met who believe in the tooth
fairy are young children and the experience of living will soon take
that belief away.
> >That depends entirely on what Christians mean when they
> > call God ‘omnipotent.’ I have met only one theist who claimed this
> > meaning, and she was a Hindu who was persuaded in a very short time by
> > yours truly that such a conception of God implied that God could not
> > exist. All other theists I have discussed the issue with have
> > maintained that God’s omnipotence refers strictly to his ability do
> > that which is logically possible. So the answer is that Wustner
> > may have unintentionally disproved *a*
> > concept of God, but it is certainly not the one that most theists hold
> > to, or even the one used by most theists who believe God is
> omnipotent.
> Is your personal, anectodal experience of encounters with Christians
> really representative enough to be used normatively?
It’s not just his personal experience, it’s mine as well! I have
never come across a single theist who knows what logic is and
believes that God can break the laws of logic. I have often seen
it claimed in alt.atheism that theists do believe such nonsense
and whenever I have asked for evidence I have received none.
Theists often tend to say some stupid things, but it seems that
they are not that stupid.
< SNIP >
> I always wondered whether any god can create a rock too heavy for him to
> lift?
Only if he does not allow his followers to study logic!
*** Martin Thomas ***
"Martin Thomas" <martin.thNOo…@maSPAMrtint.netlineuk.net> >
> It’s not just his personal experience, it’s mine as well! I have
> never come across a single theist who knows what logic is and
> believes that God can break the laws of logic. I have often seen
> it claimed in alt.atheism that theists do believe such nonsense
> and whenever I have asked for evidence I have received none.
> Theists often tend to say some stupid things, but it seems that
> they are not that stupid.
Many theists expect their god to suspend the laws of nature (God’s laws)
occasionally and call that event a miracle. Are then the powers of (a)
god really limited by man-made rules of logic? Even if we apply the
common definition of logic as the science of formal rules of reasoning
(dealing with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and
demonstration), we have to accept, that as a science, it is tentative
and must be falsifiable. That leaves a huge hole for any god to act
contrary to expectations! In fact, we mere mortals use the term "logic"
sometimes to express something in opposition to or apart from reason,
e.g. as in " the logic of war"!
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 11:54:42 GMT, "Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com>
wrote:
>"Martin Thomas" <martin.thNOo…@maSPAMrtint.netlineuk.net> >
>> It’s not just his personal experience, it’s mine as well! I have
>> never come across a single theist who knows what logic is and
>> believes that God can break the laws of logic.
>Many theists expect their god to suspend the laws of nature (God’s laws)
>occasionally and call that event a miracle. Are then the powers of (a)
>god really limited by man-made rules of logic? Even if we apply the
>common definition of logic as the science of formal rules of reasoning
>(dealing with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and
>demonstration), we have to accept, that as a science, it is tentative
>and must be falsifiable. That leaves a huge hole for any god to act
>contrary to expectations!
If theists claim god defies logic then they are saying they cannot
argue the case for the existence of god. I got my fundie sister to
admit this and also to admit that religious experiences are unreliable
(by citing the transcedental states reached in eastern religions).
Basically I demolished her but of course she STILL believes because
you see "god defies logic" and the religious experiences of other
religions are caused by satan – AARRGGGH
—
Arky
"Arky" <a…@aniceplace.com> wrote
> If theists claim god defies logic then they are saying they cannot
> argue the case for the existence of god. I got my fundie sister to
> admit this and also to admit that religious experiences are unreliable
> (by citing the transcedental states reached in eastern religions).
> Basically I demolished her but of course she STILL believes because
> you see "god defies logic" and the religious experiences of other
> religions are caused by satan – AARRGGGH
Yes, it sounds as if you found out the hard way that religion is
experienced in a different plane from reason and logic. It is often an
unconscious willing to suspend reason and judgement in order to gain
"feeling whole" and experience "the holy". Comparison with the
emotional – and often irrational – human experience of "falling in love"
may be appropriate. While evolution’s drive to reproduce is
hormone-coded in us and produces a state of "Liebesbereitschaft"
Freud, predisposition to make love), it is not entirely clear yet,
whether humans are also hard-coded with a predisposition for religion.
In any event, it is conceivable that religion gives an evolutionary
advantage to believers by the lessening of existential "angst" and, at
least within a group, creating bonds of unity.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com> wrote:
> "Martin Thomas" <martin.thNOo…@maSPAMrtint.netlineuk.net> >
> > It’s not just his personal experience, it’s mine as well! I have
> > never come across a single theist who knows what logic is and
> > believes that God can break the laws of logic. I have often seen
> > it claimed in alt.atheism that theists do believe such nonsense
> > and whenever I have asked for evidence I have received none.
> > Theists often tend to say some stupid things, but it seems that
> > they are not that stupid.
> Many theists expect their god to suspend the laws of nature (God’s laws)
> occasionally and call that event a miracle. Are then the powers of (a)
> god really limited by man-made rules of logic? Even if we apply the
> common definition of logic as the science of formal rules of reasoning
> (dealing with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and
> demonstration), we have to accept, that as a science, it is tentative
> and must be falsifiable. That leaves a huge hole for any god to act
> contrary to expectations! In fact, we mere mortals use the term "logic"
> sometimes to express something in opposition to or apart from reason,
> e.g. as in " the logic of war"!
I accept your definition of logic, except for your use of the word
‘demonstration’. I say that because it is possible for a theist
to accept the existence of god for irrational reasons, but still
reason logically thereafter.
Many theists believe that their god cannot be understood with the help
of scientific method, that he created the laws of science, but chooses
to break them now and then.
Of course, many theists are not logical. They either do not
understand logic, or else they are too emotional to think straight.
The point of my original post was that, among those theists who
know what logic is, it is very rare to find one who believes
that god can actually break the laws of logic.
That would take a very special kind of madness!
*** Martin Thomas ***
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com> wrote:
> "Arky" <a…@aniceplace.com> wrote
> > If theists claim god defies logic then they are saying they cannot
> > argue the case for the existence of god. I got my fundie sister to
> > admit this and also to admit that religious experiences are unreliable
> > (by citing the transcedental states reached in eastern religions).
> > Basically I demolished her but of course she STILL believes because
> > you see "god defies logic" and the religious experiences of other
> > religions are caused by satan – AARRGGGH
> Yes, it sounds as if you found out the hard way that religion is
> experienced in a different plane from reason and logic. It is often an
> unconscious willing to suspend reason and judgement in order to gain
> "feeling whole" and experience "the holy". Comparison with the
> emotional – and often irrational – human experience of "falling in love"
> may be appropriate.
Where I differ from most theists is that I am only prepared to suspend
reason temporarily. After much reflection, I decided that to label
my experiences as ‘seeing god’ is a very confusing way of describing
them. Among the worlds religious literature I find many scattered
examples where it is obvious that the talk of ‘gods’ is metaphorical,
though that view is not of much use to any priesthood that wants power
over people. Most pagans I have met don’t get upset if I tell them
that I regard their gods at metaphors – unlike the xtians who get
very cross if you say that!
I usually prefer not to use such metaphorical language.
Any real religion should encourage people to explore their subjective
experience. The established religions are against that, providing
dogma instead.
> While evolution’s drive to reproduce is
> hormone-coded in us and produces a state of "Liebesbereitschaft"
> Freud, predisposition to make love), it is not entirely clear yet,
> whether humans are also hard-coded with a predisposition for religion.
> In any event, it is conceivable that religion gives an evolutionary
> advantage to believers by the lessening of existential "angst" and, at
> least within a group, creating bonds of unity.
*** Martin Thomas ***
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:25:04 +0100, Martin Thomas
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<martin.thNOo…@maSPAMrtint.netlineuk.net> wrote:
>"Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com> wrote:
>> "Arky" <a…@aniceplace.com> wrote
>> > If theists claim god defies logic then they are saying they cannot
>> > argue the case for the existence of god. I got my fundie sister to
>> > admit this and also to admit that religious experiences are unreliable
>> > (by citing the transcedental states reached in eastern religions).
>> > Basically I demolished her but of course she STILL believes because
>> > you see "god defies logic" and the religious experiences of other
>> > religions are caused by satan – AARRGGGH
>> Yes, it sounds as if you found out the hard way that religion is
>> experienced in a different plane from reason and logic. It is often an
>> unconscious willing to suspend reason and judgement in order to gain
>> "feeling whole" and experience "the holy". Comparison with the
>> emotional – and often irrational – human experience of "falling in love"
>> may be appropriate.
>Where I differ from most theists is that I am only prepared to suspend
>reason temporarily. After much reflection, I decided that to label
>my experiences as ‘seeing god’ is a very confusing way of describing
>them. Among the worlds religious literature I find many scattered
>examples where it is obvious that the talk of ‘gods’ is metaphorical,
>though that view is not of much use to any priesthood that wants power
>over people. Most pagans I have met don’t get upset if I tell them
>that I regard their gods at metaphors – unlike the xtians who get
>very cross if you say that!
>I usually prefer not to use such metaphorical language.
>Any real religion should encourage people to explore their subjective
>experience.
But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
experiences. They do not mean anything.
—
Arky
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
a…@aniceplace.com (Arky) wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:25:04 +0100, Martin Thomas
> <martin.thNOo…@maSPAMrtint.netlineuk.net> wrote:
> >"Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com> wrote:
> >> "Arky" <a…@aniceplace.com> wrote
> >> > If theists claim god defies logic then they are saying they cannot
> >> > argue the case for the existence of god. I got my fundie sister to
> >> > admit this and also to admit that religious experiences are unreliable
> >> > (by citing the transcedental states reached in eastern religions).
> >> > Basically I demolished her but of course she STILL believes because
> >> > you see "god defies logic" and the religious experiences of other
> >> > religions are caused by satan – AARRGGGH
> >> Yes, it sounds as if you found out the hard way that religion is
> >> experienced in a different plane from reason and logic. It is often an
> >> unconscious willing to suspend reason and judgement in order to gain
> >> "feeling whole" and experience "the holy". Comparison with the
> >> emotional – and often irrational – human experience of "falling in love"
> >> may be appropriate.
> >Where I differ from most theists is that I am only prepared to suspend
> >reason temporarily. After much reflection, I decided that to label
> >my experiences as ‘seeing god’ is a very confusing way of describing
> >them. Among the worlds religious literature I find many scattered
> >examples where it is obvious that the talk of ‘gods’ is metaphorical,
> >though that view is not of much use to any priesthood that wants power
> >over people. Most pagans I have met don’t get upset if I tell them
> >that I regard their gods at metaphors – unlike the xtians who get
> >very cross if you say that!
> >I usually prefer not to use such metaphorical language.
> >Any real religion should encourage people to explore their subjective
> >experience.
> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> experiences. They do not mean anything.
All my experience is subjective, it’s all I have.
Even if I decide that something is objectively true, it is my
subjective experience which leads me to that conclusion.
And "mystical" experiences are just one tiny part of it.
*** Martin Thomas ***
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Arky wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:25:04 +0100, Martin Thomas
> <martin.thNOo…@maSPAMrtint.netlineuk.net> wrote:
> >"Herb Ludwig" <h…@mailnet.com> wrote:
> >> "Arky" <a…@aniceplace.com> wrote
> >> > If theists claim god defies logic then they are saying they cannot
> >> > argue the case for the existence of god. I got my fundie sister to
> >> > admit this and also to admit that religious experiences are unreliable
> >> > (by citing the transcedental states reached in eastern religions).
> >> > Basically I demolished her but of course she STILL believes because
> >> > you see "god defies logic" and the religious experiences of other
> >> > religions are caused by satan – AARRGGGH
> >> Yes, it sounds as if you found out the hard way that religion is
> >> experienced in a different plane from reason and logic. It is often an
> >> unconscious willing to suspend reason and judgement in order to gain
> >> "feeling whole" and experience "the holy". Comparison with the
> >> emotional – and often irrational – human experience of "falling in love"
> >> may be appropriate.
> >Where I differ from most theists is that I am only prepared to suspend
> >reason temporarily. After much reflection, I decided that to label
> >my experiences as ‘seeing god’ is a very confusing way of describing
> >them. Among the worlds religious literature I find many scattered
> >examples where it is obvious that the talk of ‘gods’ is metaphorical,
> >though that view is not of much use to any priesthood that wants power
> >over people. Most pagans I have met don’t get upset if I tell them
> >that I regard their gods at metaphors – unlike the xtians who get
> >very cross if you say that!
> >I usually prefer not to use such metaphorical language.
> >Any real religion should encourage people to explore their subjective
> >experience.
> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> experiences. They do not mean anything.
> —
> Arky
Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean that
inteligence is unreliable, also some
people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like mathematics
does that mean that mathematics also does
not mean anything.
chris
>> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
>> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
>> experiences. They do not mean anything.
>> —
>> Arky
>Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean that
>inteligence is unreliable, also some
>people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like mathematics
>does that mean that mathematics also does
>not mean anything.
>chris
No it does not because now you are not talking about subjective
experience. If an autistic individual can perform amazing feats it is
clear to other people. It can be verified.
BTW I would be very sceptical of the claims for Smart drugs.
—
Arky
Life is a mystical experience.
Von
Chris Jones <di…@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:397A3129.72735338@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Arky wrote:
> > >> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> > >> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> > >> experiences. They do not mean anything.
> > >> —
> > >> Arky
> > >Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean
that
> > >inteligence is unreliable, also some
> > >people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like
mathematics
> > >does that mean that mathematics also does
> > >not mean anything.
> > >chris
> > No it does not because now you are not talking about subjective
> > experience. If an autistic individual can perform amazing feats it is
> > clear to other people. It can be verified.
> > BTW I would be very sceptical of the claims for Smart drugs.
> > —
> > Arky
> Sorry, i meant that subjective (mystical?) expirience attacked on the
grounds that
> it can be induced by altering
> the brain in some way, I’m not trying to argue that it does have any
meaning, i
> just dont think its that simple.
> Is the only thing of any value what is scientificly verifiable? Is meaning
> restricted to statments that are verifiable,
> as absolute knowledge unatainable does that mean that nothing can have any
meaning?
> chris
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Arky wrote:
> >> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> >> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> >> experiences. They do not mean anything.
> >> —
> >> Arky
> >Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean that
> >inteligence is unreliable, also some
> >people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like mathematics
> >does that mean that mathematics also does
> >not mean anything.
> >chris
> No it does not because now you are not talking about subjective
> experience. If an autistic individual can perform amazing feats it is
> clear to other people. It can be verified.
> BTW I would be very sceptical of the claims for Smart drugs.
> —
> Arky
Sorry, i meant that subjective (mystical?) expirience attacked on the grounds that
it can be induced by altering
the brain in some way, I’m not trying to argue that it does have any meaning, i
just dont think its that simple.
Is the only thing of any value what is scientificly verifiable? Is meaning
restricted to statments that are verifiable,
as absolute knowledge unatainable does that mean that nothing can have any meaning?
chris
I totally agree,
chris
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Von wrote:
> Life is a mystical experience.
> Von
> Chris Jones <di…@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:397A3129.72735338@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk…
> > Arky wrote:
> > > >> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> > > >> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> > > >> experiences. They do not mean anything.
> > > >> —
> > > >> Arky
> > > >Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean
> that
> > > >inteligence is unreliable, also some
> > > >people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like
> mathematics
> > > >does that mean that mathematics also does
> > > >not mean anything.
> > > >chris
> > > No it does not because now you are not talking about subjective
> > > experience. If an autistic individual can perform amazing feats it is
> > > clear to other people. It can be verified.
> > > BTW I would be very sceptical of the claims for Smart drugs.
> > > —
> > > Arky
> > Sorry, i meant that subjective (mystical?) expirience attacked on the
> grounds that
> > it can be induced by altering
> > the brain in some way, I’m not trying to argue that it does have any
> meaning, i
> > just dont think its that simple.
> > Is the only thing of any value what is scientificly verifiable? Is meaning
> > restricted to statments that are verifiable,
> > as absolute knowledge unatainable does that mean that nothing can have any
> meaning?
> > chris
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:41:29 +0100, Chris Jones <di…@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
]>
]>
]>Arky wrote:
]>
]>> >> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
]>> >> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
]>> >> experiences. They do not mean anything.
]>> >> —
]>> >> Arky
]>> >
]>> >Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean that
]>> >inteligence is unreliable, also some
]>> >people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like
mathematics
]>> >does that mean that mathematics also does
]>> >not mean anything.
]>> >
]>> >chris
]>>
]>> No it does not because now you are not talking about subjective
]>> experience. If an autistic individual can perform amazing feats it is
]>> clear to other people. It can be verified.
]>> BTW I would be very sceptical of the claims for Smart drugs.
]>> —
]>> Arky
]>
]>Sorry, i meant that subjective (mystical?) expirience attacked on the grounds
]>that it can be induced by altering
]>the brain in some way, I’m not trying to argue that it does have any meaning,
]> I just dont think its that simple.
A persons ‘mystical’ experiance is only ‘valid’ for the holder. It is
meaningless to another.
]>Is the only thing of any value what is scientificly verifiable?
Value is dependant on the individual. In the context of your post, again,
mystical only has value to the individual.
]> Is meaning restricted to statments that are verifiable,
]>as absolute knowledge unatainable does that mean that nothing can have any
]>meaning?
Again such is dependant.
I find geothermal hot springs in the winter to be of value for the stress relief
and relaxation of a nice hot soak. Others would not find it of value.
I would not attempt to legislate that everyone within an certain area be
required to go to a geothermal hot spring once a week to soak for two hours.
However, that is what theist legislators, and other theists in ‘directive’
positions, attempt to do. They legislate, or attempt to legislate/direct, their
subjective stuff into the real world and that’s what brings the objections.
If one is attempting to put a satellite into orbit one utilizes the tools needed
to meet the objective. One does not blindly put a mishmash of parts together
plus a random selection of chemicals into the fuel tanks and then mumble into
their hands expecting a leprechaun to do anything to assist.
]>chris
Stoney
stoney wrote in message …
>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:41:29 +0100, Chris Jones <di…@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>]>Sorry, i meant that subjective (mystical?) expirience attacked on the
grounds
>]>that it can be induced by altering
>]>the brain in some way, I’m not trying to argue that it does have any
meaning,
>]> I just dont think its that simple.
>A persons ‘mystical’ experiance is only ‘valid’ for the holder. It is
>meaningless to another.
I dont think it is always valid for the "holder", it is quite easy for human
beings to develop ilusions about what they are and what they think are
expiriencing, on the other hand you cant argue that none of it has any
meaning just because some(most) of it doesnt.
>]>Is the only thing of any value what is scientificly verifiable?
>Value is dependant on the individual. In the context of your post, again,
>mystical only has value to the individual.
Are you argreeing then that mystical can have some value?
>]> Is meaning restricted to statments that are verifiable,
>]>as absolute knowledge unatainable does that mean that nothing can have
any
>]>meaning?
>Again such is dependant.I
>I find geothermal hot springs in the winter to be of value for the stress
relief
>and relaxation of a nice hot soak. Others would not find it of value.
To me meaning and value are two diferent things. I dont see that the "value
of a hot bath" has anything to do with whether meaning is restricted to
things which are scientificly verifiable.
>I would not attempt to legislate that everyone within an certain area be
>required to go to a geothermal hot spring once a week to soak for two
hours.
>However, that is what theist legislators, and other theists in ‘directive’
>positions, attempt to do. They legislate, or attempt to legislate/direct,
their
>subjective stuff into the real world and that’s what brings the objections.
i dont disagree, but at the same time you have to remember that Morality is
subjective, there
is no scientific basis for it, but most atheists dont argue against that.
>If one is attempting to put a satellite into orbit one utilizes the tools
needed
>to meet the objective. One does not blindly put a mishmash of parts
together
>plus a random selection of chemicals into the fuel tanks and then mumble
into
>their hands expecting a leprechaun to do anything to assist.
eh?
I am just trying to say that stuff isnt that simple.
chris
To who? To some, yes. To others, no.
Jim Meritt, CISSP, CISA
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:53:03 +0100, "Chris Jones" <di…@pinrut.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
]>
]>stoney wrote in message …
]>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:41:29 +0100, Chris Jones <di…@pinrit.fsnet.co.uk>
]>>wrote:
]>>]>Sorry, i meant that subjective (mystical?) expirience attacked on the
]>>]>grounds that it can be induced by altering
]>>]>the brain in some way, I’m not trying to argue that it does have any
]>>]>meaning, I just dont think its that simple.
]>>
]>>A persons ‘mystical’ experiance is only ‘valid’ for the holder. It is
]>>meaningless to another.
]>
]>I dont think it is always valid for the "holder", it is quite easy for human
]>beings to develop ilusions about what they are and what they think are
]>expiriencing, on the other hand you cant argue that none of it has any
]>meaning just because some(most) of it doesnt.
That’s why I indicated it only has ‘value’ or ‘meaning’for the holder. The key
part of the point is ‘for the holder.’ Someone else would look at it and say
‘what rubbish’. Someone else would examine the ‘mystical’ experiance and could
come up with a myraid of causes for it up to and including wishful thinking.
]>>]>Is the only thing of any value what is scientificly verifiable?
]>>
]>>Value is dependant on the individual. In the context of your post, again,
]>>mystical only has value to the individual.
]>Are you argreeing then that mystical can have some value?
What part of ‘to the individual’ hasn’t been clear? Such is meaningless to
another person, whether it be ‘jeezzus’ or the person’s Great Aunt Sadie.
]>>]> Is meaning restricted to statments that are verifiable,
]>>]>as absolute knowledge unatainable does that mean that nothing can have
]>>]>any meaning?
]>>
]>>Again such is dependant.
]>>
]>>I find geothermal hot springs in the winter to be of value for the stress
]>>relief and relaxation of a nice hot soak. Others would not find it of value.
]>To me meaning and value are two diferent things. I dont see that the "value
]>of a hot bath" has anything to do with whether meaning is restricted to
]>things which are scientificly verifiable.
It was an example.
]>>I would not attempt to legislate that everyone within an certain area be
]>>required to go to a geothermal hot spring once a week to soak for two
]>>hours. However, that is what theist legislators, and other theists in ‘
]>>’directive positions, attempt to do. They legislate, or attempt to
]>>legislate/direct, their subjective stuff into the real world and that’s what
]>>brings the objections.
]>
]>i dont disagree, but at the same time you have to remember that Morality is
]>subjective, there is no scientific basis for it, but most atheists dont argue
]>against that.
Morality is dependant upon culture and time.
My objection is the attempts to bring the barbarisms of a two millenia dead
bronze age middle east culture into the melting pot world of two thousand years
later.
]>>If one is attempting to put a satellite into orbit one utilizes the tools
]>>needed to meet the objective. One does not blindly put a mishmash of parts
]>>together plus a random selection of chemicals into the fuel tanks and then
]>>mumble into their hands expecting a leprechaun to do anything to assist.
]>eh?
Meaning we’ve put satellites in orbit and men on the moon and it’s been through
the efforts of many human beings, leprechauns or bearded old guys on celestial
‘thrones’ need not apply.
]>I am just trying to say that stuff isnt that simple.
What ‘stuff?’
For ‘x’ is there a coherant definition that does not beg the question, does not
hand wave furiously, and does provide solid information? If not there is,
literally, nothing to look for or consider. It really is that simple.
For the individual they are free to embrace their ‘vision’ or ‘feeling’ however
they wish. It is a grave error to project that stuff onto other individuals via
legislation etc..
Stoney
Arky wrote:
> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> experiences. They do not mean anything.
So your ‘subjective experience’ that "drugs, brain onjury/
disease and biochemical imbalances can all lead to
‘mystical’ experiences" cannot be relied on?
Jim Humphreys
Herb Ludwig wrote
> Yes, it sounds as if you found out the hard way that religion is
> experienced in a different plane from reason and logic.
Not necessarily. Religious belief may be based on faith,
or on reason- the latter is the approach of natural theology.
> It is often an
> unconscious willing to suspend reason and judgement in order to gain
> "feeling whole" and experience "the holy".
I’m always suspicious about this sort psychologising-
certainly one can attribute such an ‘unconscious willing’ to
believers if one wishes, but there isn’t hard scientific evidence
to support such a notion. The notion of a Freudian
unconscious is , too, highly problematic and Freud’s
own work is now IMO largely discredited following
– to take just one example- Popper’s devastating
critique of his work. And of course one can just as
legitimately present a psychology of unbelief – the atheist
is ‘unconsciously’ trying to rebel against the father etc etc..
Jim Humphreys
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Arky wrote:
> >> But subjective experience cannot be relied upon. Drugs, brain
> >> injury/disease and biochemical imbalances all can lead to "mystical"
> >> experiences. They do not mean anything.
> >> —
> >> Arky
> >Smart Drugs can be used to ehance intelectual ability, does that mean that
> >inteligence is unreliable, also some
> >people with autism exibit enhenced abilitys in lots of things like mathematics
> >does that mean that mathematics also does
> >not mean anything.
> >chris
> No it does not because now you are not talking about subjective
> experience. If an autistic individual can perform amazing feats it is
> clear to other people. It can be verified.
> BTW I would be very sceptical of the claims for Smart drugs.
> —
> Arky
I’ll give 3 quick almost purely logical arguments:
1.
The popular idea of god is a "supreme being", a perfect infinite power, a perfect
intelligence VASTLY superior to man’s.
If the universe is under the unmeasurable will and power of such a being, then man
has no chance to understand anything in it. Man’s meager intelligence, logic and
power are useless and meaningless in such a universe, if not disrespectful, if not
an unpardinable sin.
It is impossible(and sinful) for man to understand how such an infinite perfect
being could create such a weak, stupid creation as man.
It is impossible(and sinful) for man to understand how his puny strength could make
any change to the universe that "God hath wrought". Man has to walk in the mud
without leaving footprints.
It is impossible(and sinful) for man to understand how he should be able to forever
froth at the mouth for a chance in Paradise to kiss Jesus’ feet. Or how women with
long hair could wait forever for a chance to dry them off.
It is impossible for man to understand why any finitly intelligent being should
love a spiritual dictator forever, or at all.
2.
The Bible is written in poorly defined ancient languages. It is impossible that it
communicate anything exactly. ‘Virgin’ used to mean ‘young woman’. And if "she knew
not any man" she might not have seen their faces in the dark. ‘Spirit’ used to mean
‘wind’ so what is a Saint’s fart? Since ‘To blaspheme the Holy Spirt" is an
unpardonable sin, its difficult to understand how they get into Paradise. Any
chapter of it should flunk a high school writer in a secular school.
But as I argue in my web site, also traditional logic should suffer from its lack
of definition of basic terms. My solution has been the creation of the 2d
spring-block-logic simulator to create basic logic and math definitions by
EXPERIENCE, simple, natural, repeatable.
For ie5.01 and ie5.03, not Netscape:
http://www.clickenfind.com/2d_logic/2d_frames3.asp?group=LHS&to_=Babb...
3.
Mankind no longer needs only human testimony to ‘explain’ the creation of the
universe, life or intelligence. Intelligence, the ultimate creation, is being
recreated by humans – non-human logic machines. The words of the real creator are
non-manmade fossils, non-manmade stars, non-manmade atoms. Man’s direct, LITERAL
interpretation of the real creator’s words, is respectively evolution, Big-Bang,
virtual matter being created everwhere, all the time.