wild ox

Philosoft,

I sympathize with your frustration, but you claim that “In order for something to exist, it must occur within the universe (self-evident). Things that occur within the universe are all composed of physical matter.”

That statement may seem logical, but there is no proof for such a statement. I am NOT attempting to find a loophole, neither am I toying with double meanings and semantics. I am stating a view that literally billions of individuals hold: things exist beyond the natural universe. I must not be the only “interesting sort” out there.

You just can’t seem to grasp that concept. Just acknowledge the possibility. Let me make it easier on you. I will consent, only for a moment, to your viewpoint for argument’s sake. I will concede that “only physical things exist.”

Throughout history man has continually been discovering things about the “physical universe.” In 1900 Paul Villard's experiments in radioactivity led to the unexpected discovery of gamma rays. There was no known evidence for the existence of gamma rays before that point. It was if they were a part of the universe, but know one knew it. There was at that time no detection device for gamma rays. Once discovered, however, they became a recognized part of our universe.

Why can your idea of the universe not extend beyond what can be measured and pointed to?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, if you were a christian (wink, wink), then Jesus would be happy, since you're supposed to believe as a child would.

Well, I'm glad on the one hand, as I detest having to keep addressing the same points over and over again, but cautious on the other hand; are you doing this because you understand that your position is not tenable and that your points have been demonstrated to be specious?

Yes....

Un hunh...

Are you related to WJ?

Well, although this has nothing to do with anything and I don't recall ever calling any christian a fool/idiot simply because "they believe in an idea of god that they claim to have experienced," but since you asked, let me put it in perspective.

Would you be "justified" to call into question a person's beliefs of say, mystical creator woodland gnomes, if that person were sitting in your garden defecating on your flowers because the God of Woodland Gnomes (aka, the deity he believes in) told him in a dream that this was what his purpose was regardless of what anyone else tells him or instructs him to do?

Now, extrapolate that imagery to cults like christianity--who metaphorically defecate in my garden--and you'll begin to see what I'm talking about.

Again, I think you're relying on that word "justification" far too much.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

wild ox

Koy,

I understand that religious groups should be, as the Bible puts it, “judged by their fruit,” but bad behavior in the name of a belief may be the result of that person’s own false interpretations or bad character in general. Correct?

This only means that their belief is colored by a misunderstanding of reality or that they are just acting out of their own bad character and perhaps using the belief to justify it. Right?

But, since you haven’t experienced the lives of the billions of people that claim to believe in the supernatural, and since you cannot produce factual proof that the supernatural does not exist. Can you make the claim that all people that believe in the supernatural are unreasonable in that belief?

Yes, I deliberately changed the language from “God” to “the supernatural” because, if the supernatural exists, then the likelihood of deity increases dramatically.

OK. Here is my challenge. Produce a logical argument that ends in the conclusion:

C1 - IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR ANYONE, REGUARDLESS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, TO BELIEVE IN THE SUPERNATURAL

And don’t use, as one of the premises, that “only that which is physical exists.” That’s really saying the same thing if you think about it.

If you can conclude the statement:

C2 – ONLY THAT WHICH IS PHYSICAL EXISTS

Then C1 naturally follows. If you use the concepts of “physical” or “universe” please define them EXACTLY.

This is only a challenge. Take it or leave it. If you don’t produce a satisfactory argument though, I will conclude that some people who believe in God do so reasonably.

jj

Get some testable, falsifiable, verifiable evidence, and maybe we'll listen. Until the hypothetical somethings do nothing, say nothing, and remain both ineffective and undetectable, there is nothing to discuss.

There's no possibility to acknowledge. There's no difference beyond the idea of souls as non-physical and indetectable and the idea that my keyboard is haunted by the ghost of plastics past.

Both ideas, without some evidence, run counter to present understanding of the physical world, and neither has a bit of evidence to suggest examination, LET ALONE to "acknowledge the possibility" of.

Philosoft

Ox,

I can see you're having a tough time with definitions. Let's try this: Assume 'exist' when referring to a thing, means "observable; made of physical matter." Now I'll make up a word, 'nexist' to mean "fundamentally unobservable; without physical properties." What you want is for 'exist' to mean 'exist' AND 'nexist.' However, you are engaging in special pleading because individual words do not, nay cannot mean both a definition and it's opposite. In other words, you cannot say both, "thing A exists because it has property P" and "thing B exists because it has property -P (or because it lacks property P)."

WJ

Ox!

Good point! On your previous reponse to Koy, you are correct in his/her inability to logically justify his/her own beliefs.

Seems as though agnosticism is, once again, rearing its ugly head here.

Good job!

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

"Holding" a belief means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that you have an imagination.

Once again and for auld lang syne, no one here is concerned about someone believing that blue fairies surf their dendrites naked, the question is can you prove that blue fairies surf your dendrites naked?

You keep thinking that there is something magical or special or otherwise superior (for lack of a better word) to holding a belief about something. There isn't.

Believe anything you want to believe, just don't force it onto others or think that you have a duty or right to act upon those beliefs as a result of those beliefs.

And the fact that millions or billions and hundreds of trillions of other people believe the exact same thing that you believe likewise means absolutely nothing. It doesn't "justify" your belief or "legitimize" your belief or anything at all regarding your belief.

If it did, then we would all be Nazis or members of the KKK or Catholic or, according to the numbers, Chinese Buddhists.

"Beliefs" are categorically irrelevant to anyone else outside the individual's mind, unless and until that individual acts on their beliefs and effects others as a result.

That's what this is all about; the imposition of one's personal (irrelevant) beliefs onto others.

Would you like me to force your children to believe that Satan created God and has been laughing at all christian cult members from the beginning of time, because they all think there is hope when he knows there isn't?

Would you like me to force your school system to make all of the students pray to Vishnu every day?

Would you like me to strap pipe bombs to my body and blow up the local PTA meeting because Allah's will be done?

People have believed and justified those beliefs throughout all of human history, but that doesn't mean they were positive beliefs or that the justification was either legitimate or beneficial to humanity.

Need I reference the Crusades? The Salem witch hunts? Belfast? Beirut? Waco? Televangelists?

I'm curious why you think that being "justified" in your beliefs has some sort of salient meaning and I'm guessing it's because you're still stealing the intended/contextual meaning of that word from a different context and misapplying it to your own.

For example:

The phrase "would have killed me if I didn't" has two entirely different contextual meanings in these two scenarios, even though they are the exact same words.

For anyone to then say (based on these two scenarios), "All killing is self defense and therefore justified," would obviously be grossly equivocating two disparate, intended/contextual meanings to form an invalid conclusion.

That is what you have been doing. You have been saying one thing and meaning another.

For example:

The words you are using and the contextual meaning of those words are not equivalent in exactly the same manner as my example.

In your scenario, the confused intended/contextual meaning is in the words "justified" and "exists." You're taking the word "exists" (and the contextual meaning of that word) from the "abstract concept" statement and then misapplying it to the "God exists" statement, then concluding such a thing is "justified" in the same manner as the "abstract concept" statement.

In other words, you're cross polinating disparate meanings, capisca?

As I demonstrated before, abstract concepts such as "love" do not and can not be said to "exist" in the same manner that a sentient being (of whatever nature) can be said to exist.

You're saying they can. That's where you are incorrect and that's where the confusion exists.

Koyaanisqatsi

Wild Ox--

I don't know why you're now taking us off onto this track, but it is clear that both you and WJ delight in side tracking the issues in this manner so we'll go there since it speaks volumes about what has and has not been conceded either directly or indirectly by both you and WJ anyway, so what the hell?

May is a month for flowers.

It may also mean that the belief is what is causing them to act in this manner.

What is it christian cult members always say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner?"

Invalid. It is an impossibility to prove a negative.

Prove that I am not God. Since you cannot prove that I am not God, I am God.

See?

FOR THE TEN THOUSANDTH TIME, WHAT PEOPLE DO OR DO NOT BELIEVE IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

But to answer this new question, yes I can easily make and support the claim that all people that believe in the supernatural are indeed unreasonable in that belief, based on the fact that absolutely no evidence of the supernatural currently exists.

What is and is not "unreasonable," is obviously a subjective judgment call, so to ask me whether or not I can make a subjective judgment call is a no-brainer. Yes, I can make all the subjective judgment calls I want.

What you should be asking me is can I make an objective judgment call, based upon strict, specific definitions of terms and the facts in evidence?

The answer to that question is also, "Yes, I can." I can state, objectively, based on a strict, specific definition of the word "reasonable" as defined by, let's just say, Webster's:

That the belief in something that has never been demonstrated to factually exist is unreasonable; i.e., an example of something that does not have a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense.

Are you through playing word games or would you like some more, because, believe me, I can burrow down into the most specific meanings imaginable.

Just ask anyone here .

<ol type="1">[*] Why would that be the case?[*] Since there is no evidence of the supernatural, where does that then leave you?[/list=a]

Un hunh...

Already provided, but let me put it into syllogism based upon the definition of what is "reasonable" given above so that it's crystal clear and keep in mind that I do not consider it necessarily "unreasonable" to believe anything you damn well want to believe. It only becomes an issue when you act upon those beliefs and/or force others to act upon them in kind:

Happy?

I didn't.

You mean like everything you've been posting has been saying, "I am self-justified in my beliefs because I can believe whatever I want to believe and don't need any external evidence to justify my beliefs to myself?"

Which C1? Yours?

Ok, here goes (this one's exceedingly easy):

I think that does it. As I said before, it's been over a decade since my college Logic and Language course.

Already taken into account in the syllogism, which is why it was so long.

Took it.

Again, that isn't relevant, but provided nonetheless.

Now, what will you conclude?

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

You just keep dancing your little dance, there, clubber. It's cute!

Atheism: without belief in a god or gods.

That's what the term means. I know you have problems with English comprehension, so anytime you want to clarify your ignorance, kindly do so.

WJ

Koy!

Mmmm, why do you feel it necessary to discuss in great detail some thing for which you have no belief?

Walrus
---------
Atheism is just another religion