Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tenspace · 05-14-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I do it all the time. There is no way to know that everything in the Bible is inspired by God, and that other literature is not. I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but Bible literalism is a fraud.

Outside of the Bible, where do you find knowledge of the J-C God? Other than inside your head, please.

Tenspace

Tenspace · 05-14-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Jesse

Quote:

For me it's logically possible that you don't exist since I don't know whether you have an independent consciousness (you could just be a character in my dream), but assuming you are consciously contemplating this question, it is not logically possible for you. "I think, therefore I am"--a nonexistent being could not possibly be conscious of anything.

That's called solipsism, and to give credence to that would place not only man, but Jesse at the center of the universe. As mentioned, it can't be logically ruled out, but it can be deductively ruled out, primarily based on the Copernican Principle.

Tenspace

Lobstrosity · 05-14-2003, 04:31 PM

Yguy: I'm getting kind of tired of this 1+1=2 analogy. Saying you know 1+1=2 is so freaking pointless because it's equivalent to saying that I know for a fact x=x. It's a tautology! Two is defined as 1 + 1. Long ago someone gathered two objects together and gave it the name "two." So no shit, if you have two objects then you have two objects. I'm glad you know two = two, but how exactly does that relate to the existence of God? God = exists isn't a tautology (the universe could easily exist without an intelligent creator), so your 1+1=2 analogy is completely pointless.

How about a different mathematical relation--one that's not simply the equivalent of 2 = 2:

circumphrence = pi * diameter

Would you be willing to count this amongst the list of things you just know or is that something you would require justification for?

Sorry Lobstrosity, I edited your post when I meant to reply to it...I've restored it now, aside from this note to explain why it says "edited by Jesse"
--Jesse

Jesse · 05-14-2003, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tenspace
That's called solipsism, and to give credence to that would place not only man, but Jesse at the center of the universe. As mentioned, it can't be logically ruled out, but it can be deductively ruled out, primarily based on the Copernican Principle.

Tenspace

I'm not sure what you mean by "deductively". We can also rule out geocentrism based on the Copernical Principle, but I do not have absolute a priori certainty that geocentrism is false--it's really more of an empirical question.

Jesse · 05-14-2003, 05:08 PM

Lobstrosity:
I'm getting kind of tired of this 1+1=2 analogy. Saying you know 1+1=2 is so freaking pointless because it's equivalent to saying that I know for a fact x=x. It's a tautology! Two is defined as 1 + 1. Long ago someone gathered two objects together and gave it the name "two." So no shit, if you have two objects then you have two objects. I'm glad you know two = two, but how exactly does that relate to the existence of God? God = exists isn't a tautology (the universe could easily exist without an intelligent creator), so your 1+1=2 analogy is completely pointless.

Two is ordinarily defined as the successor to one, which I suppose means it's being defined as 1+1. But how about 2+2=4? In most ways of axiomatizing arithmetic I don't think you'd define 4 as 2+2. 2+2=4 would be a logical consequence of the axioms, though. But our certainty that 2+2=4 also brings in issues of "model theory", of what the various undefined terms in the axiomatic system really mean--if we took a purely axiomatic approach to arithmetic we could not feel certain that the axioms will never lead to an inconsistency, and we could therefore not be certain that a Godel statement for arithmetic is actually true. I'll repeat something about model theory and the meaning of undefined terms that I posted on this thread to yguy (when, oddly enough, he was arguing that I can't be sure that 1+1=2):

Quote:

yguy:
Sure, but it never occurred to him that planes might be other than flat - and that in fact, flat planes are essentially purely theoretical constructs with respect to anything bigger than a few hundred feet in any dimension.

But by talking about non-flat planes, you're changing the meaning of the word "plane". Again, Euclid was completely justified in thinking that parallel lines in a plane could never cross, provided you don't change the meaning of any of these words from the "traditional" meaning he was using. There's a whole branch of math known as "model theory" devoted to coming up with mental models for the various undefined terms in a particular axiomatic system, in order to see, for example, whether the axioms will lead to contradictions or not. The book Godel�s Proof gives a simple example (p. 15):

Quote:

Suppose the following set of postulates concerning two classes K and L, whose special nature is left undetermined except as "implicitly" defined by the postulates:

1. Any two members of K are contained in just one member of L.
2. No member of K is contained in more than two members of L.
3. The members of K are not all contained in a single member of L.
4. Any two members of L contain just one member of K.
5. No member of L contains more than two members of K.

From this small set we can derive, by using customary rules of inference, a number of theorems. For example, it can be shown that K contains just three members. But is the set consistent, so that mutually contradictory theorems can never be derived from it? The question can be answered readily with the help of the following model:

Let K be the class of points consisting of the vertices of a triangle, and L the class of lines made up of its sides; and let us understand �a member of K is contained in a member of L� to mean that a point which is a vertex lies on a line which is a side. Each of the five abstract postulates is then converted into a true statement. For instance, the first postulate asserts that any two points which are vertices of the triangle lie on just one line which is a side. In this way the set of postulates is proved to be consistent.

By interpreting the basic undefined terms in the axioms�"members of K" and "members of L"�as corresponding to vertices and edges on our mental models of triangles, we show that the axioms don�t lead to contradictions, assuming there is nothing contradictory about our mental model. However, it�s conceivable you could change one or more of the axioms and still have a consistent system�the undefined terms could no longer refer to vertices and edges of triangles in this case, but you might find some other mental model which they did describe accurately (lines and vertices on a pyramid, perhaps). But this wouldn�t prove we were wrong to think that, for example, an edge of a triangle can contain only two vertices�it would just show that when you modify an axiomatic system, even if it no longer describes the original mental model you had, it may describe some new mental model. This is exactly what happened in the case of the modification to Euclid�s axioms for geometry in a plane, which lead to an axiomatic system that no longer described plane geometry, but it did describe geometry on curved surfaces. Again, this just shows the flexibility of undefined terms in axiomatic systems, it doesn�t prove that Euclid was wrong to be absolutely confident that his axioms must be true if you assume the undefined terms are given their usual interpretation in plane geometry.

Tenspace · 05-14-2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse
I'm not sure what you mean by "deductively". We can also rule out geocentrism based on the Copernical Principle, but I do not have absolute a priori certainty that geocentrism is false--it's really more of an empirical question.

To clarify:

Solipsism may be logically consistent with an individual's perception of reality, but nothing about reality can be deduced from the solipsist's worldview. Nothing of value, anyway.

I feel pretty confident in the empirical evidence against geocentrism. Can we say any certainty is a priori in the light of the original title of this thread? After all, anything's possible, just most of it is highly improbable.

Tenspace

yguy · 05-14-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse
yguy:
I am sure that I'm not a butterfly dreaming of being a man.

Even a sentient butterfly, perhaps one created "in God's image?"

Yes, because I know you made it up.

Quote:

Well, how about this--would it be possible that God designed the universe in such a way that all material systems are conscious to some extent (panpsychism), and all have some limited degree of free will (perhaps accounting for apparent quantum randomness) and some limited access to the "platonic truths" which in your view stem from God's mind, like the truth that murder is wrong or that 1+1=2? Perhaps God could also set up the rules of this universe so that He knew in advance that the process of brain complexification due to evolution by RM&NS would lead to organisms with higher and higher levels of consciousness and therefore better and better access to these truths. In this way one could simultaneously believe that we are made "in His image" but also that we evolved through RM&NS.

I don't know what RM&NS is, but I suggest that more prima facie evidence exists for devolution than evolution, which supposedly took millions of years to advance a species, whereas we have seen entire cultures devolve hideously within the space a few hundred years. Endemic to the evolutionary model is the idea that by reacting to physical threats with a "fight or flight" response, members of a species become more viable. The biggest, baddest predators are able to pass on their genes, and those on the lower end of the food chain who are able to evade predators best get to do likewise. This, of course is the same dynamic which held sway in Stalinist Russia...which leads me to believe that the first humans would, by the very means that presumably created them, have destroyed themselves in short order under such a scenario.

Quote:

Presumably you would think this scenario is pretty unlikely, but do you also think it is "impossible" in the sense that 1+1=3 is impossible?

Maybe not, but the whole thing seems to hinge on a certain level brain complexity being a necessary component of human consciousness, which is unsubstantiated.

yguy · 05-14-2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Yguy: I'm getting kind of tired of this 1+1=2 analogy. Saying you know 1+1=2 is so freaking pointless because it's equivalent to saying that I know for a fact x=x. It's a tautology!

No it isn't, because nothing can be logically extrapolated from x=x, which is obviously not true of 1+1=2

Quote:

God = exists isn't a tautology (the universe could easily exist without an intelligent creator),

No, it couldn't.

Quote:

so your 1+1=2 analogy is completely pointless.

There is a point, but you missed it. I'll say it just once more: there is a means by which you know that 1+1=2. By that same means I know that God exists.

Quote:

How about a different mathematical relation--one that's not simply the equivalent of 2 = 2:

circumphrence = pi * diameter

Would you be willing to count this amongst the list of things you just know or is that something you would require justification for?

I'm aware there is a proof for it, but it is naturally based on one or more unprovable axioms, so we're back doing the same dance to a different tune.

Tenspace · 05-14-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I don't know what RM&NS is, but I suggest that more prima facie evidence exists for devolution than evolution, which supposedly took millions of years to advance a species, whereas we have seen entire cultures devolve hideously within the space a few hundred years. Endemic to the evolutionary model is the idea that by reacting to physical threats with a "fight or flight" response, members of a species become more viable. The biggest, baddest predators are able to pass on their genes, and those on the lower end of the food chain who are able to evade predators best get to do likewise. This, of course is the same dynamic which held sway in Stalinist Russia...which leads me to believe that the first humans would, by the very means that presumably created them, have destroyed themselves in short order under such a scenario.

RM = Random Mutation
NS = Natural Selection

Devolution is defined as, "A passing down or descent through successive stages of time or a process." (AHD 4th ed.)

Fight or flee is a small, very small part of natural selection. Think of evolution not as a process with a goal (like survival), but think of it more as a process of elimination. So, those with the best traits are not selected. It's those with the worst traits that are eliminated. The biggest, baddest predators don't pass on their genes - it would be more accurate to say that a population of predators adapts to its environment through the elimination of those portions of the population that are not as good at adaptation to their niche as the others.

And let's not forget the fight for survival that occurs long before the predator stalks his prey; and, you could say that this is more of a positive selection, a survival of the fittest. A sampling of any population of higher animals shows that millions of gametes (sperm, egg) are competing to produce thousands of viable offspring, which in almost all cases, and all that's left are a couple of full-grown offspring to replace the parents.

I'll quit before this thread gets moderated over to the Evolution/Creationism board.

Hey, what happened to God & the Quanta? No input from anyone?

Tenspace

yguy · 05-14-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tenspace
So what you are saying is that God has human DNA, right?

Don't aske me silly questions
I won't play silly games
I'm just a simple choo-choo train
And I'll always be the same.

Stephen King, "The Waste Lands"

Quote:

And, how does being created in an image equal free will? I don't see the connection.

Not being created in AN image, but in HIS image. He can choose whom He will love and whom He will not; so can we.

Quote:

What do you mean by this? That each believer is open to interpret whether to believe or not believe sections of the Bible?

Not being a Christian, I can't speak for believers.

Quote:

What basis is used to determine if a story is Word, parable, or fable?

Those distinctions don't interest me. However, common sense is the key. For instance, do you think Job really washed his steps with butter, or was that just poetic way of saying he was filthy rich? Or do you really think God killed guys for urinating against walls, or was that merely an oblique way of referring to males?

Quote:

But what about the order of creation? Do you believe in the sequence of events as spelled out in Genesis I?

Haven't given it much thought, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If you're about to tell me the fossil records contradict it or something like that, tell somebody who cares.

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

05-14-2003, 04:31 PM	#193
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Yguy: I'm getting kind of tired of this 1+1=2 analogy. Saying you know 1+1=2 is so freaking pointless because it's equivalent to saying that I know for a fact x=x. It's a tautology! Two is defined as 1 + 1. Long ago someone gathered two objects together and gave it the name "two." So no shit, if you have two objects then you have two objects. I'm glad you know two = two, but how exactly does that relate to the existence of God? God = exists isn't a tautology (the universe could easily exist without an intelligent creator), so your 1+1=2 analogy is completely pointless. How about a different mathematical relation--one that's not simply the equivalent of 2 = 2: circumphrence = pi * diameter Would you be willing to count this amongst the list of things you just know or is that something you would require justification for? Sorry Lobstrosity, I edited your post when I meant to reply to it...I've restored it now, aside from this note to explain why it says "edited by Jesse" --Jesse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.