Why YOU should believe...

Page 3 of 5 [ 76 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

21 Dec 2011, 10:07 pm

I believe in Plancks constant.

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

21 Dec 2011, 11:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Both assertions: God exists and God does not exist are untestable. From a scientific point of view the entire question is nonsense.

The existence of a mind-independent world is untestable - any attempt to scientifically verify the world would involve use of the senses which are part of the mind-independent world. Of course you wouldn't step out in front of a bus, but that's not the point. The question isn't whether you believe in a mind-independent world, but whether you have any justification for believing in one. You have as much empirical justification for believing in a mind-independent world as a theist does for believing in God. If you can take the world on faith, then theists can take God on faith.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

22 Dec 2011, 12:02 am

Telekon wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Both assertions: God exists and God does not exist are untestable. From a scientific point of view the entire question is nonsense.

One of these tautologies is stronger than the other.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

22 Dec 2011, 12:05 am

Telekon wrote:

Taking the "mind-independent world" on "faith" isn't strictly necessary, because one's actions don't change much regardless of whether he or she "believes" in it; for example, most of us learn at an early age that placing one's hand on a hot stove hurts irrespective of whether hand and stove actually exist in a "mind-independent world."

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

22 Dec 2011, 12:17 am

dmm1010 wrote:

Taking the "mind-independent world" on "faith" isn't strictly necessary, because one's actions don't change much regardless of whether he or she "believes" in it

Non sequitur.

Quote:

for example, most of us learn at an early age that placing one's hand on a hot stove hurts irrespective of whether hand and stove actually exist in a "mind-independent world."

Your behavior wouldn't change, but why is that relevant?

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

22 Dec 2011, 12:21 am

Telekon wrote:

dmm1010 wrote:

Taking the "mind-independent world" on "faith" isn't strictly necessary, because one's actions don't change much regardless of whether he or she "believes" in it

Non sequitur.

Quote:

for example, most of us learn at an early age that placing one's hand on a hot stove hurts irrespective of whether hand and stove actually exist in a "mind-independent world."

Your behavior wouldn't change, but why is that relevant?

You're missing the point.

A mind-independent world is irrelevant. Whether it exists or not, everything we perceive is the same.

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

22 Dec 2011, 12:43 am

blauSamstag wrote:

You're missing the point.

A mind-independent world is irrelevant. Whether it exists or not, everything we perceive is the same.

Can you explain why that is relevant? Ruveyn stated that the proposition "God exists" is untestable. But neither is a reality outside of one's consciousness testable. From his perspective the statements "God exists" and "a mind-independent world exists" are both unscientific. You wouldn't directly perceive God either if he existed, so I fail to see what point you think you're making.

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

22 Dec 2011, 1:04 am

blauSamstag wrote:

Telekon wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Both assertions: God exists and God does not exist are untestable. From a scientific point of view the entire question is nonsense.

One of these tautologies is stronger than the other.

From an epistemic standpoint, both beliefs enjoy the same degree of justification. That the world would look no different either way doesn't speak to the issue of justification. This is about epistemic justification, but you seem to think it's about something else.

kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

22 Dec 2011, 1:14 am

ruveyn wrote:

kxmode wrote:

Atoms - those building blocks that make up virtually everything in the universe - look like microscopic solar systems made up "stars" called electrons surrounded by orbiting "planets" called protons.

atoms make up about 6 percent of the universe. Most gravitating mass is not baryonic maerial (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc). 24 percent is so called "dark matter" which gravitates but is not baryonic. And the rest is so called "dark energy" which no one really knows much about.

Atoms do NOT resemble little solar systems. That is the Rutherford model of the atom which cannot be right because the electrons would collapse onto the nucleus. The electrons are more like a cloud of stuff in various shells determined by their energy. That is the model of the atom that goes with quantum physics.

Regarding "microscopic solar systems" ... does "one moon circles" sound familiar? Data and Troi discovered this to be a basic description of a hydrogen atom ("One electron circles one proton."). And I was simply saying atoms are the building blocks of all matter in the known universe. But since you obviously know way more than me, I stand corrected...

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

22 Dec 2011, 2:42 am

Telekon wrote:

dmm1010 wrote:

Taking the "mind-independent world" on "faith" isn't strictly necessary, because one's actions don't change much regardless of whether he or she "believes" in it

Non sequitur.

Quote:

for example, most of us learn at an early age that placing one's hand on a hot stove hurts irrespective of whether hand and stove actually exist in a "mind-independent world."

Your behavior wouldn't change, but why is that relevant?

It's relevant because it renders irrelevant the question of whether a mind-independent world exists. We can only know what we can sense: that is empiricism. You don't need to believe in a mind-independent world or even spend any time thinking about whether one exists. It's an unanswerable, and therefore useless, question.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

22 Dec 2011, 2:59 am

blauSamstag wrote:

You're missing the point.

A mind-independent world is irrelevant. Whether it exists or not, everything we perceive is the same.

The perception is not the same. Simply, if a and b are not the same, then there is a difference. You cannot paper over it by saying that it would look the same. There would be a difference between a and b, that is a meaningful distinction, it need not be perceptively different in order to be meaningful, that is not an necessary criteria of things being different. I suggest you check out identity, properties and the Ship of Theseus.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

stgiordanobruno
Raven
Raven

Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

22 Dec 2011, 3:32 am

GoonSquad wrote:

....something--I don't care what (as long as you don't blow people up or screw with biology class).

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/20/144026606 ... -spiritual

Quote:

December 20, 2011

Eric Weiner's most recent book is Man Seeks God: My Flirtations with the Divine.

Surveys show religious people are happier than the secular. Why is this? Is it — as an atheist friend quipped — that "ignorance is bliss?" Not long ago, that's what I would have concluded. Like many people of my ilk — cerebral East Coaster, highly skeptical and, yes, latte drinking — I reflexively viewed the religious as less sophisticated. And, if I'm brutally honest here, somehow less intelligent, or at least more narrow-minded. I don't feel that way anymore.

What surveys? can you be a bit more specific?

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 Dec 2011, 4:36 am

'what surveys?'
would be the correct question so we can actually see their data,

as said before human bias is the largest effect in anything where humans are involved, when that has been actively accounted for we can look at its points.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

22 Dec 2011, 5:38 am

I think this may have more to do with a sense of belonging. Religion is like a social club where people feel together and in tune. It wouldn't really work for me because joining anything makes me stressed.

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

22 Dec 2011, 6:15 am

Heroin makes you happier too. Should I start taking it?

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

22 Dec 2011, 6:23 am

dmm1010 wrote:

Telekon wrote:

dmm1010 wrote:

Taking the "mind-independent world" on "faith" isn't strictly necessary, because one's actions don't change much regardless of whether he or she "believes" in it

Non sequitur.

Quote:

for example, most of us learn at an early age that placing one's hand on a hot stove hurts irrespective of whether hand and stove actually exist in a "mind-independent world."

Your behavior wouldn't change, but why is that relevant?

So you agree with me then? Sorry, I still have no clue what point you think you're making.

Page 3 of 5 [ 76 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Why YOU should believe... Post Reply New Topic

Why YOU should believe...