FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2003, 04:52 PM   #141
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,126
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
It is your position, then, that the only alternative to assuming God exists is assuming He does not?
God's existence is an either/or question. Does god exist? Yes or no. God cannot "half exist".
Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
No help from the peanut gallery, please.
Calvin and Hobbes is better.
Kimpatsu is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 11:00 PM   #142
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
It is your position, then, that the only alternative to assuming God exists is assuming He does not?
Well I guess one could propose a quantum theory of God (perhaps I'll call it Quantum-God Dynamics, or QGD for short) in which God's wavefunction is a superpostion of existence eigenstates

|God> = 2^-(1/2) |exists> + i 2^-(1/2) |doesn't exist>

Then I guess it'd be fair to say that God neither exists nor doesn't exist--like Schrodinger's cat--unless a measurement is made to collapse his wavefunction into a specific eigenstate. Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I hit |God> with the Hamiltonian...

Quote:
You don't have to assume when you know.
Great, but the problem is you don't know any more than anyone else. No one "knows" anything as all knowledge is comprised of assumptions of varying degrees of confidence. So basically we're back to the point where you're making unfounded assumptions.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 06:18 AM   #143
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 2,214
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
You don't have to assume when you know.
How do you know?
Abacus is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 06:29 AM   #144
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,126
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Abacus
How do you know?
I think Yguy confuses "know" with "believe". To know something requires evidence; to believe in something doesn't.
Kimpatsu is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 07:14 AM   #145
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 2,214
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I think Yguy confuses "know" with "believe". To know something requires evidence; to believe in something doesn't.
Ah yes. I guess it's pretty common for theists to equate belief with knowledge.
Abacus is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 07:18 AM   #146
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I think Yguy confuses "know" with "believe". To know something requires evidence; to believe in something doesn't.
I thought it was:

To "know" something requires proof.
To "believe" something requires evidence.
And to "have faith" in something requires neither.
Shadowy Man is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 09:23 AM   #147
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Originally posted by yguy
It is your position, then, that the only alternative to assuming God exists is assuming He does not?


Well I guess one could propose a quantum theory of God (perhaps I'll call it Quantum-God Dynamics, or QGD for short) in which God's wavefunction is a superpostion of existence eigenstates

|God> = 2^-(1/2) |exists> + i 2^-(1/2) |doesn't exist>

Then I guess it'd be fair to say that God neither exists nor doesn't exist--like Schrodinger's cat--unless a measurement is made to collapse his wavefunction into a specific eigenstate. Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I hit |God> with the Hamiltonian...
May I take this as a "yes"?

Quote:
Great, but the problem is you don't know any more than anyone else. No one "knows" anything as all knowledge is comprised of assumptions of varying degrees of confidence.
I know that rape is wrong. Don't you? Or do you just "assume it with a very high degree of confidence"?
yguy is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 04:18 PM   #148
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
I know that rape is wrong. Don't you? Or do you just "assume it with a very high degree of confidence"?
Actually, right and wrong are mere opinions. You don't assume anything as they're predefined as personal beliefs. I don't assume murder is wrong, nor do I know murder is wrong; it's just something I subjectively believe. Others exist who don't view murder as wrong. That doesn't make them "incorrect," it simply makes them dangerous to other humans.

In short, yguy, you need to be honest with yourself and all of us. You don't know half of what you've convinced yourself you do. You believe rape is wrong. It's a personal opinion you hold. Rapists do not share this view of the "truth."

Other people believe eating meat is wrong because you're needlessly causing pain to living creatures capable of suffering. You may not agree with this stance and you may not feel guilt every time you eat a burger, but this isn't because those people are "incorrect" in their "knowledge." It's because rights and wrongs are subjective, personal value judgments that each of us formulates for ourselves based on our experiences in life.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 04:36 PM   #149
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Actually, right and wrong are mere opinions. You don't assume anything as they're predefined as personal beliefs. I don't assume murder is wrong, nor do I know murder is wrong;
I do.

Now, are you going to answer my other question?
yguy is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 04:48 PM   #150
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

I already have. Talking to you is like repeatedly slamming one's head into a brick wall...sort of like this, I guess :banghead:
Lobstrosity is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.