Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[lupus_in_fabula]

It's more like the foundation, the basement where it's a bit cold now. Then science came along and moved up to the de-luxe apartment in the sky.

But the question is: is the deluxe apartment made of anything? Or is it just where all the cool action ... ... ... “is”?

 

[dafydd]

But the question is: is the deluxe apartment made of anything? Or is it just where all the cool action ... ... ... “is”?

It's where all the intelligent people who have left primitive superstitions behind live.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It's where all the intelligent people who have left primitive superstitions behind live.

And very few of them doubt their existence, or that they are made of something.

 

[tsig]

And very few of them doubt their existence, or that they are made of something.

If you've never doubted your existence you haven't looked very far into the mirror.

 

[dafydd]

And very few of them doubt their existence, or that they are made of something.

Why should they?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why should they?

That’s my question too. Maybe tsig can answer it? (Apparently it has something to do with mirrors…)

This whole discussion is getting somewhat absurd, so I think I better wait for some clarifications first.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, could you please clarify because I find that difficult to understand? In my view, science, as a human endeavour, can only study behaviour of something; science cannot study behaviour in and of itself.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

Unless there’s (A) something which (B) behaves, we would not be able to know about it, much less study it. What is “pure action” anyway (are there any examples?)?

What I was trying to explain to Wasp is that what we perceive as substance/objects may simply be a manifestation of behaviour. As for examples, well... I'm tempted to answer "everything", although that would be a non-answer, in a way. But saying there's a fundamental substance doesn't really answer the question, either. I'll wager that whatever quantum fluctuation thingy resulted in the universe we all know and love is the example you're looking for.

Not sure if I worded all that properly.

How else can we do any experiments at all? It is my understanding that every single time we conduct empirical experiments; we are studying the behaviour of something.

Yeah, and each time we go "down" another level we find that this "thing" is made up of behaviour of other "things". Chicken and egg. My point is that Wasp's assumption that it's "chicken" may not be all that obvious.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

If there’s no distinction between behavior as such and behavior of something, then it seems to follow that they convey the same meaning, thus there’s no ultimate difference between “substance” and “behavior” either. They both entail the same underlying “something”. We’re just using different ways to say the same thing (i.e., substance implies behavior vs. behavior implies substance = same).

What I was trying to explain to Wasp is that what we perceive as substance/objects may simply be a manifestation of behaviour. As for examples, well... I'm tempted to answer "everything", although that would be a non-answer, in a way. But saying there's a fundamental substance doesn't really answer the question, either. I'll wager that whatever quantum fluctuation thingy resulted in the universe we all know and love is the example you're looking for.

Not sure if I worded all that properly.

Yes, ok, “quantum fluctuation thingy”. But even here I would suggest it’s still quite speculative, not to mention … evidence?

“Manifestation”, as in substance/objects, seems to exist, and seems to behave in particular ways, depending on what resolution we’re using and how we look – or vice versa, of course (particular behavior implies what particular substance we’re dealing with). But I’m not sure if making behavior primary is any better if we can’t separate them after all.

Yeah, and each time we go "down" another level we find that this "thing" is made up of behaviour of other "things". Chicken and egg. My point is that Wasp's assumption that it's "chicken" may not be all that obvious

Well yes, we sort of come back here – a principle chicken/egg duality. Although here I would suggest it’s not the egg either. Also, our ability to probe deeper and deeper does not suggest it must (or can) go on indefinitely. For one, it’s difficult to reconcile the abstract notion of infinite regress with real world physical explanations.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, ok, “quantum fluctuation thingy”. But even here I would suggest it’s still quite speculative, not to mention … evidence?

Of course it's speculative, because we don't know. This is why I disagreed with Wasp's absolute statement.

Well yes, we sort of come back here – a principle chicken/egg duality. Although here I would suggest it’s not the egg either. Also, our ability to probe deeper and deeper does not suggest it must (or can) go on indefinitely. For one, it’s difficult to reconcile the abstract notion of infinite regress with real world physical explanations.

Agreed.

 

[Tricky]

Several posts full of intense bickering moved to AAH. Cut it out now or I predict there will be more infractions somewhere in the near future.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[blobru]

Fine. You win. I'm leaving JREF for good.

Goddammit, wasp; this better not be permanent! Verily, this stings. Xmas is ruined.

Howzabout "for good a couple of weeks, maybe a month... fat tuesday at the latest"? (s'only flossofee)

 

[Sideroxylon]

Don't want to miss another philosophy bashing.

 

[Piggy]

What if the ‘idea’ of God does not reside in our rational epistemology, but in our ‘spiritual’ epistemology. This alternate epistemology does, after all, exist. It is exactly that by which we all navigate the tortured roads of meaning and purpose in our lives….seeking whatever it is that human beings seek in search of whatever it is that is actually worth searching for.

No, it's not, actually.

All that is done by the same brain that handles conscious intentional reasoning. There are now thousands of studies demonstrating this fact.

 

[Piggy]

This sums up the mistake of your position. You fully believe that you are capable of adjudicating any and all descriptions of God. You’re a human being.

That's right, I'm a human, and so are you.

So either you're here with something you can, in some way, comprehend and thus discuss... or you're claiming to be able to have an idea of something which is undetectable and incomprehensible, which is an obvious absurdity.

If you say that we can have no knowledge or comprehension or understanding of god, then it's not something anyone could ever have formed any idea about, and therefore it's not something we can even discuss, because we never could have heard of it or imagined it.

So if you plan to discuss god here, then it must necessarily be something that we can, in fact, comprehend in some way and have some sort of experience with.

There's simply no way around that.

 

[Piggy]

I’ve presented you with a whole pile of ‘God conditions’….here and elsewhere. They may not ‘sufficiently’ describe God to you, but they sure do to a lot of believers.

They're either sufficient or they're not.

Human beings are capable of believing all sorts of nonsensical, self-contradictory, or patently false notions, so pointing out that people believe a thing is no argument in its favor.

Show me a sufficient description or admit that there is none.

 

[Piggy]

Oh hello again Piggy its been a while.

By the way I do know what your saying and you're ignoring my definition of god. So if your going to tell me what my definition is at least remember what I said it was, ie an intelligent manipulator*. For which I have provided evidence, observable independent of human bias. The one response you did give to this definition was tainted by human bias.

To go beyond human bias you have to deal directly with principles observable in nature. However "Humpty Dumpty" they may at first appear.


* I have begun to use "manipulator" rather than "creator" because of ambiguity in definition.

Geez, do we have to go thru this again?

Now we're back to the hyperdimensional grad student.

And apparently, your attempt to "go beyond human bias" by "dealing directly with principles observable in nature" is to simply say "Gee, we humans create things and are conscious, so maybe this universe was created by a conscious thing".

Yet what you ignore is that not all possible conscious creators are gods (see the aforementioned grad student).

You also ignore the faulty reasoning, because pine trees create things too, so by your reasoning the universe might have been created by a pine tree.

In fact, when you actually do focus on what's observable in nature, you see no trace of god.

And Wasp's appeal to idealism won't save you, because (despite his assertions to the contrary) idealism as he describes it is easily debunked.

 

[Piggy]

Precisely the point…there is no coherent supportable definition of ‘God’ and there doesn’t need to be. And in case it’s escaped your notice, there is also no coherent or supportable definition of the thing that creates coherent or supportable definitions…. us (find someone who claims to understand human consciousness and you’ve found a liar).

We may not understand human consciousness... in fact, we certainly don't yet... but we can still use a functional definition to describe it and distinguish it from what it ain't.

For example, we can use a functional definition: What your brain is doing while you're awake that it's not doing when you're asleep but not dreaming, or while you're under profound anesthesia, which produces a sense of self and of felt experience.

In other words, consciousness is not something that is infinitely plastic, and for which anyone may simply invent any definition they so choose.

Nor is it something which is deemed to be utterly incomprehensible, much less undetectable.

And our understanding of how the brain produces consciousness is increasing with every passing year. Not so with god.

If there really is "no coherent supportable definition of god" then obviously you're rattling on about a loose affiliation of hopelessly vague ideas and feelings in your head, rather than discussing something which could possibly be real.

 

[punshhh]

Geez, do we have to go thru this again?

Now we're back to the hyperdimensional grad student.

And apparently, your attempt to "go beyond human bias" by "dealing directly with principles observable in nature" is to simply say "Gee, we humans create things and are conscious, so maybe this universe was created by a conscious thing".

To avoid human bias one should focus on the precise principle being observed in nature.

An entity/being/thing performing a creative act as a result of an intelligent subjective consideration of the subjective context before the act and the subjective context and consequence after the act. A choice, a subjective contribution to nature/existence.

Where this process is intimately applied/implemented in a physical environment there is an intelligent manipulator present.

If this kind of thing can be observed occurring naturally in nature one can only conclude that nature is something in which intelligent manipulators exist and operate/leave a trace.

Yet what you ignore is that not all possible conscious creators are gods (see the aforementioned grad student).

I said intelligent, not conscious.

You also ignore the faulty reasoning, because pine trees create things too, so by your reasoning the universe might have been created by a pine tree.

All life forms manipulate their environment.

In fact, when you actually do focus on what's observable in nature, you see no trace of god.

Perhaps this is your interpretation.

And Wasp's appeal to idealism won't save you, because (despite his assertions to the contrary) idealism as he describes it is easily debunked.

Idealism is the simplest logical conclusion in the light of personal experience of existence. It cannot be logically debunked.

 

[dafydd]

To avoid human bias one should focus on the precise principle being observed in nature.

An entity/being/thing performing a creative act as a result of an intelligent subjective consideration of the subjective context before the act and the subjective context and consequence after the act. A choice, a subjective contribution to nature/existence.

Where this process is intimately applied/implemented in a physical environment there is an intelligent manipulator present.

If this kind of thing can be observed occurring naturally in nature one can only conclude that nature is something in which intelligent manipulators exist and operate/leave a trace.

I said intelligent, not conscious.

All life forms manipulate their environment.

Perhaps this is your interpretation.

Idealism is the simplest logical conclusion in the light of personal experience of existence. It cannot be logically debunked.

More nonsense, although I can see how a person can be conscious but not intelligent. I don't suppose that you have any proof of the existence of these entities, outside of your fantasy world, I mean. Of course all life forms manipulate their environment, but that does not prove the existence of imaginary beings.

 

[Piggy]

Idealism is the simplest logical conclusion in the light of personal experience of existence. It cannot be logically debunked.

Wasp's version of it can be debunked in a paragraph.

Do you have one that can't?

As for the rest of your post, it's a mere rehash of your earlier statements and doesn't even attempt to address my objections.