Freethought & Rationalism Archive

owleye · 05-29-2002, 04:19 PM

geoff...

I think your error is equating logical necessity with existence. Logic (and mathematics) may apply, in a formal sense, to what exists, and if there is some objective validity to a logical or mathematical proposition, it would only be to the formal (structural) part of physical existence, not to existence itself. And, insofar as logic and mathematics in their strictly formal and pure sense make use of "abstract objects" this is undoubtedly no more than what our minds establish in intuition -- and would not otherwise exist apart from it. This doesn't imply that such objects are not objective -- it merely means that they cannot be separated from the minds that intuit them.

For example, the square drawn in the sand by Socrates for the benefit of the slave boy might represent an abstract object, but what is drawn in the sand is not thereby the square being represented. This exists, if it does at all, only in the mind, unless, that is, you are a Platonist. You might ask how it got there. I think Descartes and Plato had rather funny ideas about this. You might be following in their footsteps. Perhaps you think they were placed their by God?

owleye

geoff · 05-29-2002, 07:50 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by owleye:
"And, insofar as logic and mathematics in their strictly formal and pure sense make use of "abstract objects" this is undoubtedly no more than what our minds establish in intuition -- and would not otherwise exist apart from it. This doesn't imply that such objects are not objective -- it merely means that they cannot be separated from the minds that intuit them."

Forgive me for doing this, but I am right now disregarding my OP and charting a new, but related, thread. Owleye's response, part of which is copied above, made me think of a question I'd like to pose.

We know certain things by intuition (call it "rational intuition" for all I care. However you label this particular means of acquiring knowledge it is characterized by immediate, non-discursive apprehension; e.g., the way we know that 2+2=4). Why could we not say that God is a being who is intuited; i.e., known immediately, non-discursively? I am not suggesting that He is known fideistically. Rather, corroborating evidence exists that buttresses or confirms this intuitive knowledge, but such a knowledge is not grounded ultimately in such evidence. In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way?

Kyle Smyth · 05-29-2002, 08:47 PM

"In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way?"

I would say that it's a fallacy to say that 2+2=4 is intuitive and derived in a non-discursive manner. Any school child around 1st grade is likely to know that, but simply because it is one of the first things taught. We are taught standardized abstracts (i.e. Sesame Street) at a young age. Furthermore the knowledge that we gain about the functions of the laws of logic or mathematics (or any other abstract system of thought) is usually not intuited but derived form fundamental principals, and its taken us quite a long time for this process to get us where we are today. Another reason why I don't really think that there is a correlation to the creation of abstracts like math and the creation of a god theory is that creation of abstracts gives us a functional tool to manipulate and understand the world. Just as we can translate natural systems into abstracts, we can translate abstracts back into natural systems. I know 2+2=4, and if I know I need 4 pounds of potatoes, then I know I can buy two 2 pound bags. I don't know how you could translate a natural system into an intuitive understanding of god and then relay that back into the real world. Its not the same process because it does not serve the same function.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kyle Smyth ]

h · 05-29-2002, 09:22 PM

Kyle,
Have you read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'? If you haven't, you should. Have a happy day.

Vorkosigan · 05-29-2002, 11:18 PM

In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way?

Indeed, some of my best knowledge about Frodo, Miles Vorkosigan and Regis Hastur was acquired this way.

In other words, just because we have knowledge about something, doesn't mean that it isn't fictional.

Vorkosigan

Wasim · 05-30-2002, 12:12 AM

Unicorn. Griffin. Out of Body Experiences. Concepts of God.

How can N&E account for this?

You want proof, read a book, or better yet, do something REALLY daring and switch of that computer, put down your coke bottle glasses and talk to some REAL people. They'll tell you - oh it's true, it's true!

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Wasim ]

Vorkosigan · 05-30-2002, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wasim:
Unicorn. Griffin. Out of Body Experiences. Conccepts of God.

How can A&E account for this?

You want proof, read a book, or better yet, do something REALLY daring and switch of that computer, put down your coke bottle glasses and talk to some REAL people. They'll tell you - oh it's true, it's true!

Effective argument. I am sure it will convince everyone here.

Wasim · 05-30-2002, 04:05 AM

Why would I want to convince eberyone her? What have I got to gain? Is the purpose of questioning all that which relates to the self for the purposes of acquiring an over inflated ego or rather to expand ones consciousness as so to attain a level of enlightenment unsurpassed by those that have gone before? If lifes purpose was to impress ones peers then this existence would ber ultimately futile as it is intrinsically impossible to appease each and every single person. The greatest suffering is happines. And ego is one with happiness. Fo true liberation of the SOul to occur one most be free from the ego.

Understand this and you have realised a great honourable truth.

Bookman · 05-30-2002, 08:30 AM

[quote]Originally posted by geoff:

Quote:

In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way?

Because the knowledge of the type that you refer to that we gain by intuition we verify through experience; alas, we can not do this with any meaningful definition of God.

You're not Thinker, are you?

Bookman

geoff · 05-30-2002, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman:


Because the knowledge of the type that you refer to that we gain by intuition we verify through experience; alas, we can not do this with any meaningful definition of God.

You're not Thinker, are you?

Bookman

I know the following example differs from my original one of how we intuit mathematical truths, but I think it will work just the same (better?): I intuit that my sense experience is generally reliable but there no non-circular argument can be supplied to prove this. That seems to defeat your assumption that all of our intuitive knowledge can be verified via experience. There seem to be things we intuitively know that can't be verified by raw experience.

No, I'm not Thinker, just Geoff. I've seen other folks assume more than one identity on these lists and find that a bit disingenuous. Maybe I'm being a bit too uncharitable though. Why do you ask?

05-29-2002, 08:47 PM	#43
Kyle Smyth Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: St.Paul MN Posts: 11	"In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way?" I would say that it's a fallacy to say that 2+2=4 is intuitive and derived in a non-discursive manner. Any school child around 1st grade is likely to know that, but simply because it is one of the first things taught. We are taught standardized abstracts (i.e. Sesame Street) at a young age. Furthermore the knowledge that we gain about the functions of the laws of logic or mathematics (or any other abstract system of thought) is usually not intuited but derived form fundamental principals, and its taken us quite a long time for this process to get us where we are today. Another reason why I don't really think that there is a correlation to the creation of abstracts like math and the creation of a god theory is that creation of abstracts gives us a functional tool to manipulate and understand the world. Just as we can translate natural systems into abstracts, we can translate abstracts back into natural systems. I know 2+2=4, and if I know I need 4 pounds of potatoes, then I know I can buy two 2 pound bags. I don't know how you could translate a natural system into an intuitive understanding of god and then relay that back into the real world. Its not the same process because it does not serve the same function. [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kyle Smyth ]</p>

05-30-2002, 12:12 AM	#46
Wasim Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: UK Posts: 10	Unicorn. Griffin. Out of Body Experiences. Concepts of God. How can N&E account for this? You want proof, read a book, or better yet, do something REALLY daring and switch of that computer, put down your coke bottle glasses and talk to some REAL people. They'll tell you - oh it's true, it's true! [ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Wasim ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2002, 04:19 PM	#41
owleye Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Home Posts: 229	geoff... I think your error is equating logical necessity with existence. Logic (and mathematics) may apply, in a formal sense, to what exists, and if there is some objective validity to a logical or mathematical proposition, it would only be to the formal (structural) part of physical existence, not to existence itself. And, insofar as logic and mathematics in their strictly formal and pure sense make use of "abstract objects" this is undoubtedly no more than what our minds establish in intuition -- and would not otherwise exist apart from it. This doesn't imply that such objects are not objective -- it merely means that they cannot be separated from the minds that intuit them. For example, the square drawn in the sand by Socrates for the benefit of the slave boy might represent an abstract object, but what is drawn in the sand is not thereby the square being represented. This exists, if it does at all, only in the mind, unless, that is, you are a Platonist. You might ask how it got there. I think Descartes and Plato had rather funny ideas about this. You might be following in their footsteps. Perhaps you think they were placed their by God? owleye

05-29-2002, 07:50 PM	#42
geoff Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 39	[QUOTE]Originally posted by owleye: "And, insofar as logic and mathematics in their strictly formal and pure sense make use of "abstract objects" this is undoubtedly no more than what our minds establish in intuition -- and would not otherwise exist apart from it. This doesn't imply that such objects are not objective -- it merely means that they cannot be separated from the minds that intuit them." Forgive me for doing this, but I am right now disregarding my OP and charting a new, but related, thread. Owleye's response, part of which is copied above, made me think of a question I'd like to pose. We know certain things by intuition (call it "rational intuition" for all I care. However you label this particular means of acquiring knowledge it is characterized by immediate, non-discursive apprehension; e.g., the way we know that 2+2=4). Why could we not say that God is a being who is intuited; i.e., known immediately, non-discursively? I am not suggesting that He is known fideistically. Rather, corroborating evidence exists that buttresses or confirms this intuitive knowledge, but such a knowledge is not grounded ultimately in such evidence. In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way?

05-29-2002, 09:22 PM	#44
h Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: florida Posts: 17	Kyle, Have you read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'? If you haven't, you should. Have a happy day.

05-29-2002, 11:18 PM	#45
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	In a nutshell, if at least some of our knowledge is acquired by way of intuition, why can't knowledge of God be acquired in the same way? Indeed, some of my best knowledge about Frodo, Miles Vorkosigan and Regis Hastur was acquired this way. In other words, just because we have knowledge about something, doesn't mean that it isn't fictional. Vorkosigan

05-30-2002, 04:05 AM	#48
Wasim Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: UK Posts: 10	Why would I want to convince eberyone her? What have I got to gain? Is the purpose of questioning all that which relates to the self for the purposes of acquiring an over inflated ego or rather to expand ones consciousness as so to attain a level of enlightenment unsurpassed by those that have gone before? If lifes purpose was to impress ones peers then this existence would ber ultimately futile as it is intrinsically impossible to appease each and every single person. The greatest suffering is happines. And ego is one with happiness. Fo true liberation of the SOul to occur one most be free from the ego. Understand this and you have realised a great honourable truth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.