User Tag List

First 789

Results 81 to 88 of 88

  1. #81
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default


  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    1) What grounds *do* you have for calling God doing it just one of many unlikely possibilities? It's a subtle error, and it sounds like you're channeling Hume here.
    I didn't lean on Hume, no. I'm coming from a very different background.


    The classic counterexample is if my local paper reported I won the Powerball, you should immediately discount it, because the odds of winning the Powerball are *far* less than that of a reporter making an error in a story.
    Nah, the odds are different than with the case of a miracle so this analogy sucks. Again a sucky analogy lol

    To elaborate, there is a difference between "very low" and "very very very very very very very very very very very very very very low" probability.


    Therefore, one never gets a chance to develop *any* non-zero probability of a miracle...
    I actually never said it was zero, just that I assign a very low number to its probability.


    The problem is that you are assuming up front that the allegedly miraculous event should have the rules of ordinary life applied to it when calculating "how likely" -- the reason you can't is NOT that the believers want special pleading to make up for the monstrous disadvantages in their philosophical contentions, but rather (this is related to my next point), that with the intervention of God, you simply cannot CONTROL for that variable rigorously -- it is the very assumptions which underlie classical experimentation which are possibly being suspended. Quoting the legal regulations about stopping at a red light simply don't cover the case when there is a live policeman with a whistle in the intersection, using direct authority to override the ordinary rules.
    I'm actually assuming something different, see below.

    Oh and it's a special plea already for believers to assume there's a God and more than that, that this God even intervenes.


    As far as the assumptions about God, the problem is that God is (by definition, as it were) supernatural *and* sentient, capable of exercising choice.
    By definition? That's fishy, a definition doesn't determine reality.

    Also, if we are talking about definitions anyway, do you really have a good definition for "sentient"? If you mean animals and humans are sentient, well that's a pretty vague definition. Vitalism failed a long time ago in chemistry.


    You have neither prior evidentiary, nor prior theological/theoretical grounds for limiting God to working through natural means *exclusively*; such a condition is both a hidden axiom, *and* the less general case. Even those who claim God can work through supernatural means do not claim that He is limited exclusively to those means, or that he does not employ humans as representatives, emissaries, or servants/taskmasters.
    Sure, it doesn't necessarily make much more sense to assume a God that works only through natural means than to assume a God that works through non-natural means as well. Though I would say, I see it in a way that makes it the more general case, God only working through natural means, by the theory of God creating the world and "abandoning" it in a sense. Not intervening basically beyond creating the world and its rules, and letting specific things happen this way (if we assume a sort of determinism for the rules). However this to me is still an inconsistent theory. Why create a world like this one, what goal is to be achieved with it? Putting people as the main goal isn't very logical to me. It's just a human-centric theory, egoism at its finest Just like when they assumed the Sun went around Earth.


    It is both different, and petitio principii.
    What is different about it in sense? (About using religion, compared to using a form of naturalism.)

    It is no more "petitio principii" than first assuming God and a specific definition of it and then working off that assumption to explain things.

    If you disagree, let me know why. My original question here was actually this


    Those who believe in God, are not thereby compelled to believe in any specific account of a miracle, nor to subscribe to any particular model purporting to describe how that miracle (if accepted as historical) happened to have been achieved. There position gains the strength of being the more general case: at the cost of insisting on a set of (absolutely KNOWN to be fixed) metaphysical boundary conditions;
    Just because something is logically a more general case, it doesn't give it more truth in reality. Also if that's the case,

    How is it "absolutely KNOWN" to be fixed, for those certain metaphysical conditions?

    Why is it good to neglect explanation of how miracles work?


    often scientists have the (felt, but rarely explicitly voiced) apprehension that by admitting any possibility of God at all, the very possibility of the efficacy and usefulness of science has necessarily been surrendered
    I don't really see the logic behind that issue. It's not at all necessary, this consequence (about science being rendered useless).


    much as (say) certain Biblical literalists get the vapours when textual discrepancies, or problems in translation in different copies of Biblical codices are shown (e.g. Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses with horns on his head because of a passage of how Moses appeared with the Glory of God resting on his head getting mistranslated as "horns"...)
    Lol...


    Except zero, as it commits one philosophically in advance.
    Actually assigning any number will commit you to one position.


    This fear is unfounded, provided that God either agrees (so to speak) to not go tromping around willy-nilly in EVERYTHING; this can be accomplished either by
    a) staying out of labs for the most part, only getting involved and interfering to render aid to those in need
    b) keeping the *number* of interferences rare, so that any instance which happen to step on an experiment can be written off by the scientist as "unknown experimental error".
    I wasn't talking about a "fear". I was talking about a logical inconsistency in the specific worldview being analysed. And not just in terms of scientific experiments.

    I will admit this is a subjective analysis but I think this is the only logical one. Your assumption, on the other hand, adds an assumption of God who messes around, not keeping to any kind of logic. Of course maybe the world isn't logical at all but the God alternative is even more subjective as it's the result of very concretist and wishful *human* thinking. Note I am using the word "human" instead of "divine".


    You've touched on another one of the ingredients to the misunderstandings here.
    Science works by assuming "equal a priori probabilities" that is, when entertaining hypotheses, one should evince no bias in advance.
    Now this is useful when one is trying to keep one's ear to the ground in order to not throw away finely-grained, but actually significant ("signifying" some effect), experimental effects.
    But the problem is that this over time is taken by the scientist as some sort of necessary *indication* that "the Universe ITSELF" is like that.
    But correlation is not causation; and absence of evidence is not (sufficient) evidence of absence -- merely an indication.
    It may hold STRONGER in the natural world, if the assumption of fixed natural laws is true: the more rigorously a law is demonstrated, and over a wider variety of conditions, the more one feels ("gains assurance") it is likely to be true; but if dealing with an explicitly non-corporeal entity, moreover one possessed of independent will and purpose, one can never guarantee when or why it will act --
    at least not by experment; such is only going to happen by personal acqauintance.
    I get what you mean about it being just an assumption that things are logical the way scientific thinking assumes them to be. However my response is as above. God is a human concept, not divine.

    You mention "personal acquaintance" in terms of that. Mind saying more about what you mean by that? I assume you mean the religious psychological experience. Now my question will be, how do you know it's not your own mind's desires playing tricks with you?

    Notice how God's personality tends to take on human qualities, e.g. being vengeful for example. Reflecting worldly human thinking about certain issues. Another example would be the desire to submit to an authority or a desire to have someone to trust as a kid trusts his/her parents. Any of those roles the concept of God can fulfill.

    Do note at this point that I'm coming from a psychology background; my way of viewing things is with the default framework that we process things through our own human minds.


    He's better than unfair; He's merciful.
    Not merciful, if that's done at the expense of another party.


    I'll reply to the rest later. My wife is making bedroom eyes.
    Lool that, have fun ehehehh

    I'm looking forward to your replies!

  3. #83
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    I saw your response. Trying not to nod off.
    Will get back to you as I have time.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  4. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INFX
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    88

    Default

    I had no idea science was stolen in the first place...

  5. #85
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inventor View Post
    I had no idea science was stolen in the first place...
    You haven't noticed that the New Age stole Quantum Mechanics?

    You haven't noticed Christian Science stole science, holus bolus?

    You haven't noticed the Catholic doctrine of Faith and Reason?

    You haven't noticed American Protestantism teaches Creationism?

    You haven't noticed mbti stole psychometrics?

    And you haven't noticed Islamic Science teaches Creationism?

    And it has probably passed by your attention that astrology has stolen astronomy.

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INFX
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    You haven't noticed that the New Age stole Quantum Mechanics?

    You haven't noticed Christian Science stole science holus bolus?

    You haven't noticed mbti stole psychometrics?

    And you haven't noticed Islamic Science teaches Creationism?
    But how is it stolen? People will always say stupid stuff, but I fail to see how this is stolen.

  7. #87
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inventor View Post
    But how is it stolen? People will always say stupid stuff, but I fail to see how this is stolen.
    It's called propaganda, propaganda de fidei.

    And propaganda is neither true nor false, it is plausible.

    And hundreds, thousands of millions find the propaganda of the New Age, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Astrology and MBTI to be plausible.

    And it was one of the most important people of the 20th century, Edward Bernays, who wrote the book, Propaganda, and taught mass propaganda to the government and top companies of the USA.

    And so not only do we believe the propaganda of religions to be plausible, we believe the propaganda of government and top companies to be plausible.

  8. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INFX
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    It's called propaganda, propaganda de fidei.

    And propaganda is neither true nor false, it is plausible.

    And hundreds, thousands of millions find the propaganda of the New Age, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Astrology and MBTI to be plausible.

    And it was one of the most important people of the 20th century, Edward Bernays, who wrote the book, Propaganda, and taught mass propaganda to the government and top companies of the USA.

    And so not only do we believe the propaganda of religions to be plausible, we believe the propaganda of government and top companies to be plausible.

    Propaganda is everywhere, we have atheists propaganda, religious propaganda, government propaganda, so and so forth. But science isn't stolen (yet). There is far too much ideology seeping into science I agree, we have science, and then we pop-pseud-science (which is old).

    Religious want to bring science into something old, and materialists want to bring to something new, however none of these bankrupt ideas are posing a serious threat. If the government start to influence science the same way the beliefs systems mentioned above do then we have a problem.

Similar Threads

  1. Sciencebucks.com, the kickstarter of science funding?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
  2. the Pinnacle of Science Fiction
    By Kingfisher in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. [NT] Worshiping at the altar of science.
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
  4. Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 12:23 PM
  5. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO