religion

[Silvertaler]

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

 

It's interesting some people support the idea that humanity is made to believe. Is being atheist natural? Nature does expect us to resist it a little, though.

[Assume Nothing]

What is God without Satan?

[Myweponsg00d]

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

 

It's interesting some people support the idea that humanity is made to believe. Is being atheist natural? Nature does expect us to resist it a little, though.

 

Made to believe?

 

You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe?

[fakeitormakeit2]

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

The concept of a perfect god is a Greek one. See weak theology, etc. Assumptions, assumptions.

[Dheginsea]

What is God without Satan?

 

God would still be God. A lack of Satan would not change how God exists although people might not count him as good

 

Fakeitormakeit may I ask what the Arabic (I believe) symbols in your picture mean?

 

 

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

 

It's interesting some people support the idea that humanity is made to believe. Is being atheist natural? Nature does expect us to resist it a little, though.

 

First of not every religion states that god is perfect. But even if they all did they're definitions of perfection would be very different from eachother. For example look at my earlier post about a perfect world I'm betting that yours (or someone else's) would be different from yours. The fight (I think) is less over that there is a god (unless its between theists and atheists) but who's god is the one that actually exists. Also when you say perfect are you referring to the Greek idea of perfect.

 

May I ask this you don't have to answer if you don't want to, are you theist or atheist? It seems that your are looking for a justification to be atheist? And are you saying that nature has given us a gene that makes us more inclined to be a theist than an atheist?

[meol]

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

 

It's interesting some people support the idea that humanity is made to believe. Is being atheist natural? Nature does expect us to resist it a little, though.

 

Made to believe?

 

You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe?

Maybe not a specific gene, but we certainly are inclined to believe and search for the supernatural, both from a sociological and a psychological point of view. And atheism (be it right or wrong) seems to be an evolutionary novel idea, along with liberalism and sexual exclusivity.

[Dheginsea]

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

 

It's interesting some people support the idea that humanity is made to believe. Is being atheist natural? Nature does expect us to resist it a little, though.

 

Made to believe?

 

You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe?

Maybe not a specific gene, but we certainly are inclined to believe and search for the supernatural, both from a sociological and a psychological point of view. And atheism (be it right or wrong) seems to be an evolutionary novel idea, along with liberalism and sexual exclusivity.

 

I would have to disagree with the statement that atheism is a novel idea, liberalism I'm not so sure about, and sexual exclusivity is relatively recent. And ofcourse we would be inclined to believe in god from a sociological or psychological view because humans want to feel special/important or just have a strong belief/hope to help them through life.

[sephiroth_king]

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

 

It's interesting some people support the idea that humanity is made to believe. Is being atheist natural? Nature does expect us to resist it a little, though.

 

Made to believe?

 

You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe?

Maybe not a specific gene, but we certainly are inclined to believe and search for the supernatural, both from a sociological and a psychological point of view. And atheism (be it right or wrong) seems to be an evolutionary novel idea, along with liberalism and sexual exclusivity.

 

I would have to disagree with the statement that atheism is a novel idea, liberalism I'm not so sure about, and sexual exclusivity is relatively recent. And ofcourse we would be inclined to believe in god from a sociological or psychological view because humans want to feel special/important or just have a strong belief/hope to help them through life.

 

One of the main reasons people want to believe in a God and even an Afterlife is the somewhat inherent fear of death and the end to one's on existence and the novel complex of punishment for one's wrongdoings--its mostly Psychological. Sociology can really only explain the spread of an idea to different persons.

 

Humans that look at a universe and say to themselves, "Wow, things could have been different," will realize just simply that--things could have been different. A human race that looks at the universe and says, "Wow, things could have been different...I may not have existed...therefore I must have been ordained to exist!"

 

Its an emotional appeal; which of those two scenarios seems more positive? That one is ordained, or that we are simply stupid Apes trying to solve the greatest questions that are floating around now? A human mind is prone to illusion mixed with emotion, and it is no wonder the many Gods and even Goddesses have existed throughout time.

 

I believe that a thinking mind that uses evidence and corroboration to solve things in daily life is naturally what the human mind seeks, but is ultimately overpowered and torn askew by the emotion of the individuals and slowly spread to the masses.

[Dheginsea]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

[Myweponsg00d]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

 

It's really hard to say, since we don't know of a world without religion.

 

I think morality is good for the world. I think blind belief without evidence or especially in spite of evidence is very bad for the world.

 

But if I had the choice between a world where everybody had morals and nobody believed in science, versus a world where nobody had morals and everyone believed in science, I would have to pick the moral world.

 

But I really do think that morality can be completely seperated from religion. Why do we need a man in the sky in order to express our beliefs about what is right and wrong?

[Dheginsea]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

 

It's really hard to say, since we don't know of a world without religion.

 

I think morality is good for the world. I think blind belief without evidence or especially in spite of evidence is very bad for the world.

 

But if I had the choice between a world where everybody had morals and nobody believed in science, versus a world where nobody had morals and everyone believed in science, I would have to pick the moral world.

 

But I really do think that morality can be completely seperated from religion. Why do we need a man in the sky in order to express our beliefs about what is right and wrong?

 

Ya i guess a moral world with no science would be better than a world with no morals but that would also be debatable. Also your completely right about not needing a religion to have morals, I mean I'm not religious but I consider myself moral.

 

If a God exists he's so superior to us that he's probably not even part of the same dimension. Every religion says he's perfect, so theoretically we can all agree on that. Why should people even bother joining different religions?

The concept of a perfect god is a Greek one. See weak theology, etc. Assumptions, assumptions.

 

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge but I thought Gods that werent perfect and acted almost human was also Greek. See gods that do bad things out of jealousy and fear

What Fakeit meant was when you say perfect do you mean the Greek idea of perfect: which i think is unchanging. The Greek religion had the gods be unperfect for a reason gods don't have to be the definition of perfect in a culture.

[GuidesForScapers]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

Doing good things for the wrong reasons. Why should i care if you helped an old lady cross the road if you did it to get a VIP ticket to eternal bliss? If i do it, i do it because i'm a genuinely nice person, i don't gain anything out of the situation other than the satisfaction of helping someone else out. You get all the ice cream and va-jay-jay you could dream of. Not saying all religious people are horrible people, just maybe not as nice as they seem with the man with a suitable pit of fire for them to spend eternity in if they don't help Dorris up.

 

Yeah, that means religion is supposedly making the world a better place. If you disregard the countless wars/deaths caused by it. Oh, and don't forget the countless years in which science came second to religion, holding back actual progress and replacing it with "if you do things i, God, made you instinctively want to do before getting married i will kill you repeatedly forever."

[Nenga]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

Doing good things for the wrong reasons. Why should i care if you helped an old lady cross the road if you did it to get a VIP ticket to eternal bliss? If i do it, i do it because i'm a genuinely nice person, i don't gain anything out of the situation other than the satisfaction of helping someone else out. You get all the ice cream and va-jay-jay you could dream of. Not saying all religious people are horrible people, just maybe not as nice as they seem with the man with a suitable pit of fire for them to spend eternity in if they don't help Dorris up.

 

Yeah, that means religion is supposedly making the world a better place. If you disregard the countless wars/deaths caused by it. Oh, and don't forget the countless years in which science came second to religion, holding back actual progress and replacing it with "if you do things i, God, made you instinctively want to do before getting married i will kill you repeatedly forever."

After the fall of the roman empire the catholic churches held on to science so it wouldn't be lost. It's how Columbus knew the world was round. So if you take the catholic church away but keep the fall of the roman empire, the knowledge would have been lost, Columbus would have never made his journey, and you wouldn't be reading this today.

[Dheginsea]

The Catholic Church was the only major organization to survive the fall of Rome. They owe their power that lasts to today on their authority over...

 

1.) The afterlife - you peasants better listen to us if you want good things after you die

2.) Language/music/education - Bibles were written only in latin, and only people affiliated with the church would have access to education

3.) Enormous political/social/economic power - Pope is more of a political then religious position (arguably), church attendance was socially mandatory (to a degree still is, even in modern America you cant have an atheist President because of all the religious people that demand religion), tithes and ability to take money from the peasants through a number of measures they can make up on a whim since they were only ones able to access education and read the bible and interpret it.

 

 

That right there is why Christianity is so popular today. If the catholic church fell with the rest of the empire it is very likely Europeans would either have stayed pagan or became muslim

I would guess that if the catholic church fell islam would have eventually over taken paganism.

[GuidesForScapers]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

Doing good things for the wrong reasons. Why should i care if you helped an old lady cross the road if you did it to get a VIP ticket to eternal bliss? If i do it, i do it because i'm a genuinely nice person, i don't gain anything out of the situation other than the satisfaction of helping someone else out. You get all the ice cream and va-jay-jay you could dream of. Not saying all religious people are horrible people, just maybe not as nice as they seem with the man with a suitable pit of fire for them to spend eternity in if they don't help Dorris up.

 

Yeah, that means religion is supposedly making the world a better place. If you disregard the countless wars/deaths caused by it. Oh, and don't forget the countless years in which science came second to religion, holding back actual progress and replacing it with "if you do things i, God, made you instinctively want to do before getting married i will kill you repeatedly forever."

After the fall of the roman empire the catholic churches held on to science so it wouldn't be lost. It's how Columbus knew the world was round. So if you take the catholic church away but keep the fall of the roman empire, the knowledge would have been lost, Columbus would have never made his journey, and you wouldn't be reading this today.

Perhaps if religion hadn't been holding back science, Columbus would have been landing on the moon.

[Myweponsg00d]

Perhaps if religion hadn't been holding back science, Columbus would have been landing on the moon.

 

I am an atheist and am annoyed by most religions, but I have to say, I have never seen evidence that the church actually held back science, and that it was the fault of having a religious institution. A lot of people just say "blah blah blah THE DARK AGES!!!!" but I have never seen a description of any events that took place in the Dark Ages that actually convince me it is the fault of religion.

[Nenga]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

Doing good things for the wrong reasons. Why should i care if you helped an old lady cross the road if you did it to get a VIP ticket to eternal bliss? If i do it, i do it because i'm a genuinely nice person, i don't gain anything out of the situation other than the satisfaction of helping someone else out. You get all the ice cream and va-jay-jay you could dream of. Not saying all religious people are horrible people, just maybe not as nice as they seem with the man with a suitable pit of fire for them to spend eternity in if they don't help Dorris up.

 

Yeah, that means religion is supposedly making the world a better place. If you disregard the countless wars/deaths caused by it. Oh, and don't forget the countless years in which science came second to religion, holding back actual progress and replacing it with "if you do things i, God, made you instinctively want to do before getting married i will kill you repeatedly forever."

After the fall of the roman empire the catholic churches held on to science so it wouldn't be lost. It's how Columbus knew the world was round. So if you take the catholic church away but keep the fall of the roman empire, the knowledge would have been lost, Columbus would have never made his journey, and you wouldn't be reading this today.

Perhaps if religion hadn't been holding back science, Columbus would have been landing on the moon.

Please point out to me where I said religion was holding back science? That's because I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, kthx.

 

You probably shouldn't try debating things you apparently don't know that much about. Like I said, without the catholic church, you probably wouldn't have most of the science we know today. Information was distributed on a need to know basis, lowly field workers didn't need to spend half of their lives in a church learning the world was round and proper table manners, not when people needed to eat.

 

Like it or not, the catholic church played a big and important part in world history. Just because you don't like the religion doesn't mean all things associated with it are terrible. I'm not religious, I don't believe god exists. That doesn't mean I protest church sponsored fund raisers or organize massive sit-ins at soup kitchens. There's a line between not believing in a religion and hating a religion. I believe you've crossed that line.

[Zierro]

No. If it was truly 2 dimensional, you could not see it. It is a 3D object. All things you can see are three dimensional. There are no two dimensional objects in our space.

 

I'm pretty sure 2-dimensional refers to something which lacks depth but has a width and height. A shadow is also a 2-dimensional thing. Now is it made up of matter? No, of course not, if that's what you thought my point was. My point is that it could exist without humans, if we want to say that rocks could.

 

What? Color contrast? How is that going to solve anything? You cannot see a line, a true line. All "lines" you see will have some thickness to them. This makes them not an actual line.

 

The "lines" are just differences in hues. If your eye can detect a black bruise on a shiny green apple and you can distinguish that the color blotch is triangular in shape, then it would be true that a triangular pattern exists on that apple in an objective sense, if a rock can exist on its own in an objective sense.

 

Again it was interpreted by us and abstracted by us, but none of that matters at all if the rules of that system don't actually depend on nature. Even if the "inspiration" for geometry was a perfectly formed circle floating in the sky, our entire system of mathematics doesn't DEPEND on that at all. The inspiration could have come from literally anywhere, and the source of this inspiration does not have any impact on what we determined to be the rules.

 

Obviously we get the freedom to assign labels and values and such, but, going back to "the concept behind labels", nature dictates that eating an apple from a sack of apples will mean less apples for later. No matter what we call the words, the concept behind those words will always be true in our nature, at least as we know it nomologically.

 

No, I wouldn't say that a hole is an object that can be detected.

 

Sounds as if you're trying to convince me that the word shouldn't exist at all. Holes can be detected. So long as there is no matter surrounded by matter of the same object, there is a hole, whether it "should" or "shouldn't" be there.

 

Laws are what we believe to be facts, theories are what we believe to be explanations.

 

Thank you, that certainly clears up a lot. I was under the impression that when someone says "scientific law" they were talking on an absolute level where there is no room for error. I just never heard it worded that way.

 

I would not say this re-worded question is impossible. Your previous conjecture seemed to be similar to "Can a dead thing be living?" I would say it was impossible because there would be no way for us to call something dead and living at the same time...

 

Yes, which is at least one instance where something can be physically impossible.

 

If your question is "Can this pile of dinosaur bones start breathing?" I would say that it is not impossible, in the absolute sense. Again...how could we ever call it truly impossible? What is our knowledge from? We have arrived at the assumption that bones cannot breathe because we have looked at tons and tons of bones, and none of them were ever breathing. It is logical then, to submit that this stack of bones is nothing special and will probably not spring to life.

 

I'm pretty much in agreement with this point. It is working off an assumption, but a smart one. I'll expand on this in the next paragraph.

 

Okay, and? Does this affect whether we can call physical events absolutely impossible?

 

Not absolutely impossible (moreso because the definition of absolute impossibility is silly [it COULD happen if [insert any scenario you want]). Nomologically impossible is the word. Impossible going by the rules that we have observed. And going back to my point above, it is technically an assumption to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's a smart assumption because in the world we live in and know of and observe, the sun rises everyday.

 

That wasn't a very good example though because some day the sun really won't rise, but probably nowhere in our lifetimes. A better example would be living fossils. In all of our existence, we have not seen even one case of something return from the dead (and I mean dead-dead, fossil dead, not in-a-coma-dead), and we've learned scientifically what it takes to maintain a life which decomposed bodies do not possess. While believing this is evidence that death = permanent expiration of living/functioning might be a bit of an assumption, it's still by far the most accurate theory we have. I'd argue that it's wiser to believe it's impossible than to believe it's possible, but we will probably disagree here.

 

This is an entirely valid point...but my interpretation of what you just said seems to help what I am saying. Theres no possibility or impossibility in nature. We made up that concept. The only things that can be impossible are other things we made up.

 

Not really, because I'm not the one drawing a thick bold line between nature and abstract. I believe they go hand in hand.

 

There might not be "possibility" lying around on the grass in nature, but you won't find "truth" there either. Doesn't mean the only things that can be false are other things we made up.

 

I completely disagree with this. The only thing science takes as a "known" is that the images that are being seen by us are reality. I wouldn't say that we have absolute knowledge that bones are dead, that gravity will always happen, that energy must be conserved, etc. Again, most of these are extremely extremely logical, predictable, and consistent conclusions. But even if we reach a conclusion that holds true for a billion years, the billionth-and-one year might shed completely new light on a subject. There's absolutely no telling what we might end up being wrong about, no matter how certain our current scientific understanding of the world is. We can never reach an absolutely certain scientific understanding.

 

I disagree harder.

It is a knowable fact that earth is not the only planet in the universe.

It is a knowable fact that Obama is the president of the US.

It is a knowable fact that most humans can walk.

It is a knowable fact that sex can lead to pregnancy.

It is a knowable fact that ice is denser than water.

It is a knowable fact that I can type on this forum.

 

At this current point of time, all of these statements are absolutely 100% true. If there is any sort of fallacy to any of them, I'd like to see them challenged.

 

And your point is complete crap, because theres no similarity or difference between things unless we are there to decide it. Judging things by "are these the same?" is able to create impossibility because we decided they arent the same.

 

Hell, a rhino and a penguin are made up entirely of the same chemical compounds. Maybe they'd look the same to somebody else. And they are definitely both made up of protons, electons, and neutrons. Who gets to decide what is the same and what isn't if we aren't around? This decision would take intelligent arbitration, and is not a "natural" property of the things.

 

How is it not a natural property? The difference between a creature with a horn and a creature with a beak is just as "subjective" as the difference between a rock being on a log and a rock not being on a log.

 

This has been my most stressed point for quite some time. If you want to say that the rock is objectively there with or without humans, we can say that holes are objectively there with or without humans. No matter what, we'll always need a human mind to talk about stuff like this, and at the same time, we're just trapped in a realm of dictated rules that we can only observe and only have slight manipulation over. This is exactly why the abstract and the physical are both entirely relevant to epistemology - because you can't get around either of them.

 

There is us, and there is the world. Try having one without the other.

 

Show me what is meant by "one" then. Don't show me an example of "one". Show me what is the universal, undeniable, non-abstract meaning of "one".

 

Non-abstract meaning of one? I never said it wasn't abstract, I just said it wasn't only abstract and that there had to be some sort of inspiration in nature. How else could we have thought of it? Out of the blue randomly? No, we needed an example of one first.

 

 

------

 

 

As for the FSM and Santa discussion, my complaint was that not everything that lacks evidence can be put into the same category. There is no evidence for lizardmen. There is also no evidence for floating lizardmen geniuses with afros who go around every year and give all the poor teenagers of the world sports cars. Does that make them equally plausible?

 

And for my personal opinion, I would say that Santa has been debunked to a level far greater than god has. The concepts might both be pretty ridiculous, but to say they are equally ridiculous is to assert they are both breaking an equal amount of rules of commonsense.

[Myweponsg00d]

I'm pretty sure 2-dimensional refers to something which lacks depth but has a width and height. A shadow is also a 2-dimensional thing. Now is it made up of matter? No, of course not, if that's what you thought my point was. My point is that it could exist without humans, if we want to say that rocks could.

 

A shadow is not an object. And if you call a shadow an area of darkness created by blocked light, it is three dimensional.

 

The "lines" are just differences in hues. If your eye can detect a black bruise on a shiny green apple and you can distinguish that the color blotch is triangular in shape, then it would be true that a triangular pattern exists on that apple in an objective sense, if a rock can exist on its own in an objective sense.

 

It would be reminiscent of a triangle, but again, it would not be a true triangle. Your whole point was to make an argument that a triangle exists, not a triangle-like pattern.

 

Obviously we get the freedom to assign labels and values and such, but, going back to "the concept behind labels", nature dictates that eating an apple from a sack of apples will mean less apples for later. No matter what we call the words, the concept behind those words will always be true in our nature, at least as we know it nomologically.

 

Again, you don't have a method for knowing this with absolute knowledge. All knowledge we form about the physical world is based off an assumption that things will behave consistently. Just because every bag of apples in history behaved that way doesn't mean that your bag of apples definitely will without a shadow of a doubt.

 

Sounds as if you're trying to convince me that the word shouldn't exist at all. Holes can be detected. So long as there is no matter surrounded by matter of the same object, there is a hole, whether it "should" or "shouldn't" be there.

 

How do you know when there is a hole in an object?

 

Does this thing have a hole in it? Most people would call it so. But this relies on an interpretation of the physical space. Really, the bird house is an object with one continuous surface. Nothing is really "broken" or "missing" in the object. We just see this object as something that "should" be a box, but instead it is a box with a "hole"

 

Thank you, that certainly clears up a lot. I was under the impression that when someone says "scientific law" they were talking on an absolute level where there is no room for error. I just never heard it worded that way.

 

Yes, nothing in science, to the strictest meaning of the word, is absolute. Theres just no method for attaining absolute certainty. Scientific laws are pretty damn reliable, but to call them absolute is a mislabeling of our methods for discovering absolute knowledge of the physical world.

 

Yes, which is at least one instance where something can be physically impossible.

 

Again, but it was what I would argue to be corrupted by abstract classification. I've already conceded that there can be no dead living things, no dry wet objects, and no round triangles. Thats because of the way you are classifying the objects into abstract categories of knowledge. Physical possibility must be examined without such abstract classification. Reexamine the question "Can a pile of bones start moving?" This is different from "Can a dead thing be alive?" because when you use the word "dead" you are claiming to have knowledge of what the object can possibly do. And the question would require the object to be "dead" and "alive" at the same time. The question about the pile of bones may seem similar, but it is not assuming any type of permanent knowledge about the system of objects.

 

Not absolutely impossible (moreso because the definition of absolute impossibility is silly [it COULD happen if [insert any scenario you want]). Nomologically impossible is the word. Impossible going by the rules that we have observed. And going back to my point above, it is technically an assumption to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's a smart assumption because in the world we live in and know of and observe, the sun rises everyday.

 

I have said before that if your meaning of impossible is "something that will likely never happen in my lifetime or even anyone elses lifetime" then there are many impossible occurances. By "possible" I mean anything with a non zero probability. Not something that is far away from zero, but any number that is NOT zero. I would call that technically "possible" but "improbable"

 

 

Not really, because I'm not the one drawing a thick bold line between nature and abstract. I believe they go hand in hand.

 

There might not be "possibility" lying around on the grass in nature, but you won't find "truth" there either. Doesn't mean the only things that can be false are other things we made up.

 

Abstract knowledge and physical knowledge sure do go hand in hand, but that doesn't mean you can't break apart knowledge into these two categories.

 

I disagree harder.

It is a knowable fact that earth is not the only planet in the universe.

It is a knowable fact that Obama is the president of the US.

It is a knowable fact that most humans can walk.

It is a knowable fact that sex can lead to pregnancy.

It is a knowable fact that ice is denser than water.

It is a knowable fact that I can type on this forum.

 

At this current point of time, all of these statements are absolutely 100% true. If there is any sort of fallacy to any of them, I'd like to see them challenged.

 

Ice is actually less dense than water due to the hydrogen bonds. If ice was more dense, it would sink in water.

 

How is it not a natural property? The difference between a creature with a horn and a creature with a beak is just as "subjective" as the difference between a rock being on a log and a rock not being on a log.

 

This has been my most stressed point for quite some time. If you want to say that the rock is objectively there with or without humans, we can say that holes are objectively there with or without humans. No matter what, we'll always need a human mind to talk about stuff like this, and at the same time, we're just trapped in a realm of dictated rules that we can only observe and only have slight manipulation over. This is exactly why the abstract and the physical are both entirely relevant to epistemology - because you can't get around either of them.

 

There is us, and there is the world. Try having one without the other.

 

I dont understand your meaning. How can there be a question about whether or not a rock is touching a log?

[Zierro]

A shadow is not an object. And if you call a shadow an area of darkness created by blocked light, it is three dimensional.

 

I feel as if we're talking about two different things here since you keep mentioning the word "object". I do recall saying it has relevance to the physical world or something to that extent, but my point is just that a shadow or hole or lie are all things that can objectively exist in a realm without humans, if it can be assumed that anything else could exist without us. I'm not trying to talk about matter or mass, just existence and truth in actuality.

 

It would be reminiscent of a triangle, but again, it would not be a true triangle. Your whole point was to make an argument that a triangle exists, not a triangle-like pattern.

 

Well scratch it because I don't care what you call it anymore. The point is that the concept behind abstract things can exist in actuality. I can think of another example if you'd like.

 

A gust of wind is an abstract concept. But without humans, animals could still feel it and it would still rustle trees. Yeah, there would be no one around to label all this stuff, but there would be nobody around to label rocks and physical existence either. Does this mean that nothing can exist unless humans do, or does it simply mean the concept behind some of the things we've abstracted were here before us?

 

Again, you don't have a method for knowing this with absolute knowledge. All knowledge we form about the physical world is based off an assumption that things will behave consistently. Just because every bag of apples in history behaved that way doesn't mean that your bag of apples definitely will without a shadow of a doubt.

 

Well that would literally be breaking the rules of mathematics then. If math is arbitrary like you're claiming, why would we even use it?

 

Does this thing have a hole in it? Most people would call it so. But this relies on an interpretation of the physical space. Really, the bird house is an object with one continuous surface. Nothing is really "broken" or "missing" in the object. We just see this object as something that "should" be a box, but instead it is a box with a "hole"

 

I see your point here. It basically only serves as a description to another object, but nothing in its own accord.

 

Now let me ask this. If we can assume it to be true that a rock can exist without humans, is it true that there could be a box with a "hole" if humans didn't exist?

 

Again, but it was what I would argue to be corrupted by abstract classification. I've already conceded that there can be no dead living things, no dry wet objects, and no round triangles. Thats because of the way you are classifying the objects into abstract categories of knowledge. Physical possibility must be examined without such abstract classification. Reexamine the question "Can a pile of bones start moving?" This is different from "Can a dead thing be alive?" because when you use the word "dead" you are claiming to have knowledge of what the object can possibly do. And the question would require the object to be "dead" and "alive" at the same time. The question about the pile of bones may seem similar, but it is not assuming any type of permanent knowledge about the system of objects.

 

Yes, but no matter what declarative sentence under the sun you wish to assimilate with your lips, you're using labels. What does that matter? We can still always say there are things which are impossible.

 

I have said before that if your meaning of impossible is "something that will likely never happen in my lifetime or even anyone elses lifetime" then there are many impossible occurances. By "possible" I mean anything with a non zero probability. Not something that is far away from zero, but any number that is NOT zero. I would call that technically "possible" but "improbable"

 

That's a bit too simple though, don't you think? Going by that logic, what tells us if something has a zero probability of ever happening? Nothing. So... Would it be logical to conclude that "everything is possible until proven impossible" (which can't be done)? Which if you've noticed is the inverse of "nothing exists until proven existent"? I would think if anything an atheist would believe "everything is impossible until proven possible".

 

I like to break it up with the adjectives "absolute" and "nomological".

 

Absolute impossibility - no chance ever, which is a silly concept, but like infinity it's something we must work with. The nonsense of it is what it takes to call something possible. Only one "if" - that's all the word means in its purest (most confusing) form. "It's possible that dogs would take their owners on a walk everyday from Sept. 10 - Dec. 20, 2011, if we were in an alternate universe bla bla bla." Essentially, the word has no point because there's always some ridiculous matrix way to throw everything we know about anything out the window.

 

Nomological impossibility - no chance in regards to the world we know and see. This sounds much more manageable. It is nomologically impossible that President Obama is a cactus. The composition of Obama is far different than the composition of any cactus we know of. But in terms of absolute impossibility, there could be an alternate universe where humans have cacti flesh. You can literally say any sentence you want and nothing could stop you from calling any of it impossible, even ridiculous abstract stuff like "something is burning and freezing simultaneously".

 

But if we were to think of things on that scale, where would we get? If we want an accurate view of the world around us, we need to have some foundation to stand on. We should judge things based on how we understand our world to operate - scientifically, collectively, empirically.

 

Abstract knowledge and physical knowledge sure do go hand in hand, but that doesn't mean you can't break apart knowledge into these two categories.

 

What would a good example be? The ones like a "lie" or "hole", I've disagreed on and think both are relevant. A hole is physical because without humans, animals would still have mouths to eat from and sea sponges would still be the same. A hole is abstract because it's not even really there - it is a word to describe the condition of another object. A lie is abstract because it relies heavily on what is considered the truth. A lie is physical because without humans, animals/aliens/whatever could still use sound waves to transmit a false message.

 

Now I might be getting a bit liberal with the definition of "physical" here. I do not mean it as something you can touch and hold. I mean it as something that exists concretely and objectively. Something like "love" or "evil" are some of the only things that pop into mind that are entirely abstract because they require another person since they are so utterly subjective. As for something completely physical, well, I wouldn't be able to talk about it if there were nothing abstract about it.

 

Ice is actually less dense than water due to the hydrogen bonds. If ice was more dense, it would sink in water.

 

:oops: :oops: :oops:

 

Okay you got one. I still think it's possible to know some things absolutely. For example, I know that I just typed the sentence "I still think it's possible to know some things absolutely." If you couldn't, then that would cause a paradox because then that would be something you could know.

 

But yeah.... :oops:

 

I dont understand your meaning. How can there be a question about whether or not a rock is touching a log?

 

That was bad wording. I'll redo.

 

And your point is complete crap, because theres no similarity or difference between things unless we are there to decide it. Judging things by "are these the same?" is able to create impossibility because we decided they arent the same.

 

The difference between a creature with a horn and a creature with a beak is just as "subjective" as the difference between a rock existing and not existing. The question relies on a simple yes/no value. But if you want to argue that this value can never be decided unless humans are present, you just made the argument that there is no existence or non-existence value to things unless humans are around to decide.

[Dheginsea]

hey guys let's go back to the original point of this thread, do you think religion is good for the world. Also (I'm adding this) has the good its down outweighed the bad?

Doing good things for the wrong reasons. Why should i care if you helped an old lady cross the road if you did it to get a VIP ticket to eternal bliss? If i do it, i do it because i'm a genuinely nice person, i don't gain anything out of the situation other than the satisfaction of helping someone else out. You get all the ice cream and va-jay-jay you could dream of. Not saying all religious people are horrible people, just maybe not as nice as they seem with the man with a suitable pit of fire for them to spend eternity in if they don't help Dorris up.

 

Yeah, that means religion is supposedly making the world a better place. If you disregard the countless wars/deaths caused by it. Oh, and don't forget the countless years in which science came second to religion, holding back actual progress and replacing it with "if you do things i, God, made you instinctively want to do before getting married i will kill you repeatedly forever."

After the fall of the roman empire the catholic churches held on to science so it wouldn't be lost. It's how Columbus knew the world was round. So if you take the catholic church away but keep the fall of the roman empire, the knowledge would have been lost, Columbus would have never made his journey, and you wouldn't be reading this today.

Perhaps if religion hadn't been holding back science, Columbus would have been landing on the moon.

That might have been the case because the dark ages really only affected europe, and Africa became one of the worlds greatest powers at the time.

[Myweponsg00d]

I feel as if we're talking about two different things here since you keep mentioning the word "object". I do recall saying it has relevance to the physical world or something to that extent, but my point is just that a shadow or hole or lie are all things that can objectively exist in a realm without humans, if it can be assumed that anything else could exist without us. I'm not trying to talk about matter or mass, just existence and truth in actuality.

 

The shadow would "be there" but it is not a thing. A shadow is not an actual object, it is our interpretation of a difference between light and dark. Your situation of "ripping a hole off of something" is really similar to this shadow stuff because neither are actual objects. Physical questions deal with things that actually exist in the physical world. A shadow does not exist in the sense that a rock, bird, or electron exists.

 

Well scratch it because I don't care what you call it anymore. The point is that the concept behind abstract things can exist in actuality. I can think of another example if you'd like.

 

I agree, the concepts can exist, otherwise we would have no reason to invent the concepts. But our concept of the number one, our definition of a triangle, etc, are not goverened by the physical world, and do not rely on any laws of nature. The number one and the triangle play by our rules because we know absolutely everything there is to know about them, because we created them.

 

A gust of wind is an abstract concept. But without humans, animals could still feel it and it would still rustle trees. Yeah, there would be no one around to label all this stuff, but there would be nobody around to label rocks and physical existence either. Does this mean that nothing can exist unless humans do, or does it simply mean the concept behind some of the things we've abstracted were here before us?

 

A gust of wind is not an abstract concept. It is air molecules moving through the air. Things can exist without humans. Basically I would say that anything made out of matter is a physical thing. Anything that isn't made out of matter does not exist. A hole is not made out of matter, a lie is not made out of matter, the number one is not made out of matter. These things are classifications invented entirely by us. We know what is one and what is not one, because we invented one.

 

Well that would literally be breaking the rules of mathematics then. If math is arbitrary like you're claiming, why would we even use it?

 

It doesn't break rules of math. Maybe an extra apple appeared in your bag as soon as you removed the other one.

 

I see your point here. It basically only serves as a description to another object, but nothing in its own accord.

 

Now let me ask this. If we can assume it to be true that a rock can exist without humans, is it true that there could be a box with a "hole" if humans didn't exist?

 

Yes of course, that bird house would be there. But I hope you are seeing now that asking some type of physical question about this "hole" doesn't make sense. If we asked: Can the hole on that bird house fall off and go onto the ground? The question doesn't make sense because the hole isn't even there to begin with. It can't go anywhere because it isn't anywhere.

 

Yes, but no matter what declarative sentence under the sun you wish to assimilate with your lips, you're using labels. What does that matter? We can still always say there are things which are impossible.

 

Lets compare two questions: "Can this rock travel the entire way to the Sun after I throw it?" versus "Can a completely dead cat be completely alive?"

 

The first question is not an inherent physical impossibility. Sure, we need to label the meaning of a rock, the meaning of traveling, and all of the other words. But, there is nothing inherent about the words I used that "contaminates" the question with an abstract classification to limit the system. The only criteria for this question is that some physical object undergoes physical motion and reaches another physical object. No matter what we called these objects we would be asking the same question, could it hit the Sun?

 

The second question is purely impossible. If we call something dead, we know it isn't alive. I can't imagine there being an object that we would ever be able to call dead and alive at the same time. To answer this question, I didn't even need to think about any scientific knowledge that we have, I just needed to think about the words (using abstract knowledge). To answer the first question, the definitions of the words did not lead to any specific answer, meaning that the question would be answerable only by using physical knowledge about the universe. My abstract knowledge was meaningless in answering the first question.

 

That's a bit too simple though, don't you think? Going by that logic, what tells us if something has a zero probability of ever happening? Nothing. So... Would it be logical to conclude that "everything is possible until proven impossible" (which can't be done)? Which if you've noticed is the inverse of "nothing exists until proven existent"? I would think if anything an atheist would believe "everything is impossible until proven possible".

 

You've got it right. Anything is possible, if we are talking about physical events. 200 years ago, people would have been willing to bet their lives that time runs the same every single place in the universe. Now we have knowledge that convinces us that time is only relative to your frame of reference, and can pass differently in different places. This is now a "law" of physics, but 200 years ago, the reverse would have been a "law". Hell, theres a possibility that we could make some discovery in the future that over-turns Einsteins work with relativity. You never ever know.

 

A fundamentally important fact of scientific progress is that you can never EVER know anything about the physical world for absolute certainty. No matter how ridiculous I think God is, I would never ever claim to know for 100% certainty that he does not exist.

 

I think you have misinterpreted the atheist stance, and the way any scientist would look at any hypothesis. I'm not saying "I think you're wrong, unless you can prove that you're right" What science says is "Give me a reason to believe you"

 

Until we have a reason to believe that a god created the universe, there is no reason that we should perfer the god theory over the sphaggeti theory, the virtual reality theory, the monkey theory, the XYZ theory...etc. We could make up a million different theories at this time that have the same ammount of evidence as a god would. (note: by saying "no reason" I mean no scientific reason. "I want to believe" is a reason, yes, but it is not a scientific one)

 

I'm not saying you're wrong about God. I'm saying we have no reason to think anything about before the Big Bang.

 

I gotta go, might get to the rest of this later.

[Harpy]

Interesting..

Every tried to explore things that you KNEW were absolute truths? Such as..

 

Unbiased Absolute truths:

 

- Everyone is born?

- The moment you are born you are already dieing.

 

Anyone wanna expand on these? Add some more ABSOLUTE truths. That EVERYONE can agree on.

[Myweponsg00d]

Interesting..

Every tried to explore things that you KNEW were absolute truths? Such as..

 

Unbiased Absolute truths:

 

- Everyone is born?

- The moment you are born you are already dieing.

 

Anyone wanna expand on these? Add some more ABSOLUTE truths. That EVERYONE can agree on.

 

I wouldn't call these absolute truths. It would be possible for somebody to be created in a laboratory, and what's your definition of "dieing"? (It's dying btw)

[Guy]

Interesting..

Every tried to explore things that you KNEW were absolute truths? Such as..

 

Unbiased Absolute truths:

 

- Everyone is born?

- The moment you are born you are already dieing.

 

Anyone wanna expand on these? Add some more ABSOLUTE truths. That EVERYONE can agree on.

 

I wouldn't call these absolute truths. It would be possible for somebody to be created in a laboratory, and what's your definition of "dieing"? (It's dying btw)

I guess that depends on your definition of 'born'. Is it when the foetus turns into a baby, or is it the moment of conception?