Originally Posted by Pebble
I am not farmiliar with the acronym FSM so cannot comment on this!
Unfamiliar with FSM, don't get out too much! Just another of man's inventions to explain the existence of the universe. There is no need to have specific information to answer my question! You can simply demonstrate the principle of your approach. To facilitate you in this regard, FSM is a recent invention by a group of skeptics demonstrating how easy it is to create a new Deity, similar issues raised by the 'cargo cult'
The FSM exists
The FSM does not exist
The FSM does not exist but neither does it exist.
The FSM exists (True) in the sense it is a deliberate conceptual creation.
The FSM does not exist (True) It has no material existance
The FSM both exists and does not exist. (True) It exists conceptually but not actually.
God Exists (False) no proof
God does not exist (False) no proof
God does not exist but neither does God exist (Neutral) unlike the FSM the two statements cancel each other out.
Because the question of God is unprovable to date, and none is forthcomeing, then the question of God's existance is totally indeterminable and really should not be argued...or decided upon...and basically forgotten about....like it or not..God has NIL/Neutral truth value because it is indeterminable whether he even exists or not in the first place.
.
Pebbles I don't blame you if you don't get any of this stuff - its the sort of thing that is really hard to get your head around at first. Im trying to keep it simple but in doing that Im complicating it. So this is the best I can do .
So the 2 sets of logic are equivalent, except that in the case of the FSM I provided you with one piece of information: man invented the concept. Given that the only logical explanation for 'god' is that man invented the concept, one may deduce the following
God exists (True) in the sense it is a deliberate conceptual creation.
God does not exist (True) It has no material existance
God both exists and does not exist. (True) It exists conceptually but not actually.
I think my tiny brain is beginning to manage, though perhaps not, as I remain unimpressed by your arguments
You're not comlplicating anything, SorryImPsychic, all you're doing is obfuscating.
So, you apply arbitary terms to the three states - true, false and not yet determined. So what? At best you have defined three Boolean sets. What can you do with that? I can't see that you can perform any algebraic function with that system. Quite literally you might as well apply the terms 'good', 'bad' and 'indifferent' or 'Bill', 'Ben' and 'Archibald' ( or any words/symbols or whatever you like ) to the three sets - it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what you call them, you're simply creating labels for states which are more elegantly and precisely described by everyday language.
Surely you might just as well try to multiply the words 'this is true' and 'that is not true'. It's utterly meaningless.
Your third set, incidentally, should not be 'that which is both true and not true', but 'that which has, as yet, neither been determined to be true or false'.
Again, how do you apply that in any useful context? Do you distinguish between the subjective and objective in this? I say that red is the nicest colour. Which set do you put that in? How do you determine your conclusion. And what do you do with your system then?
If my guess is correct about where you're going with this SorryImPsychic, then I rather suspect you're hoping to open the door and let Shroedinger's rather tired old moggy into the room. Please tell me I'm wrong!
There is no argument
Why do people rise to the bait? She is insane. Ignore her.
I am not sure on this score; arrogant and conceited yes, but at an average of 14 posts per day, she(?) is either a missionary or seriously uncomfortable with her own world view. Does it matter? Surely, it all contributes to the debate, even if sometimes the associated denigratory remarks are gratuitous.
I don't think one necessarily excludes the other.
Yes it does matter because there IS no debate here. I know, I've tried! A debate implies a discussion of opposing points of view. However, where one 'side' almost completely ignores the points of the other (or just denies them without offering any reason), it hardly even qualifies as a chat, far less a debate.
Point taken, but S.I.P is to my mind quite typical of those who believe that they can defend quackery with pseudoscience. As the real enemies of reason such individuals merit attention since they genuinely believe that science supports their interpretation. While engaging them is unlikely to change this, it does help identify the pattern of obfuscation they follow and perhaps inform the way rational thought should be presented to the public.
The Big Bang theory does not postulate that the current known universe "exploded into existance from nothing...". The theory implies nothing at all about where the current observable universe came from before the "Big Bang", just that all the evidence suggests quite strongly that there was a central point from which all of the observable universe originated at a certain point in time, estimated to be around 13.7 billion years ago. This is known because all the viewable matter is moving away from a point in space, at velocities that would be expected with such an event. Much more evidence besides, people did not come up with an idea of "hey lets guess that it was a big explosion and look for evidence for that". Science looks at the evidence and postulates a hypothesise based on the evidence, then tests the hypothesise to the point of breaking, removes any part which does not survive the numerous testing and when it is VERY stable, they elevate it to theory then keep testing it constantly, relentlessly.
You may as well say; Evolution says the universe came from nothing, or The theory of gravity for that matter. Neither of these along with the big bang theory have anything to say about pre-big bang.
Could you provide a link or the name of the bacteria (I'm assuming you are referring to bacteria) living in lava? The closest thing I have heard of is bacteria living in about 130 to 150, just above boiling point, which is much much cooler than the melting point of rocks.
Also, evolution of bacteria tends to work in increments, not huge bounds. Suggesting that the bacteria in milk could evolve to withstand the temperatures of pasteurization close to boiling point when the bacteria would usually die at just over half that temperature would be a strawman representation of the evolutionary process.
Sure, if we only heated the temperature of the milk to a tiny bit above what it would take to kill most bacteria of this kind, and kept doing this for many many many years, then it is more plausible, but that is not how it is done. If there was a reasonable chance that the bacteria would adapt at the temperatures now used, they would have to increase the pasteurisation temperature, thus changing the taste of the milk, which I am sure people would eventually get used too.
If what you suggest does happen in the future, then so be it, that does not deny the science behind it at the moment. With the current bacteria we are dealing with, current conditions are fine. If something does come up, who do you think will come up with new solutions to solve the new problems? Mystics?
Yes science is based on assumptions, we have to assume 2+2 =4.
As to your example about arguing about the existence of something, in your example, of a god.
T=God exists
F=God does not exist
U=Undetermined
In this context you are correct, all we can say is U. This is because the word God has not been defined. It is a meaningless word, not even a concept. But if one were to define, or give the word God characteristics, such as; omniscient(all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all loving).
T=God exists
F=God does not exist
U=Undetermined
Now we come up with F. If it was all caring, then there would be no suffering, no hunger, pain or sorrow. It would have the ability to stop suffering, as it is all powerful and at the same time all caring, and being all knowing, it would know pain existed and stop it. So logically, this god can not exist, as the existence of suffering creates a logical contradiction.
If one were to give the word god the only defining characteristic of Creator of the universe.
Then all anyone could say is U.
So on the concept of "god" as an abstract idea, then one logically would have to be Agnostic, but to individual definitions of god/s one can easily be a gnostic atheistic.
While I agree, I don't think this works with the fruitcakes. If you accept god as the creator of the universe, then one can readily move to the concept of why did he do that. So for any given current god concept e.g omnibenevolent, one can equally come up with all sorts of excuses why human suffering is part of said plan.
I was not expecting SorryImPsychic to suddenly accept what I was saying, I was just interested in her response. Although I suspect a troll.
Of course, convoluted logic and reasoning can pretty much explain anything, no matter how contradicting, irrational or illogical. Which is why I tend to keep my argumentum, for the most part, to internet forums, etc.
It is hard if not impossible in most cases to reason someone out of a point of view that they did not reason themselves into.
(to bastardise a quote)
It is also very hard to argue with people who think they can explain everything that they believe with gross misconception of quantum mechanics, which is the direction I fear this thread is going, to some extent. Damn that "What The Bleep Do We know".*
*Logical fallacies for entertainment purposes only.
Seconded! I completely detest that bloody film. The bastardisation of quantum theory is an insult to the intelligence, and the 'you create your own reality' philosophy probably sounds great to the happy, shiny new-age crowd, but at its core it's completely monstrous.
I wonder if JZ 'Ramtha' Knight would tell a victim of child abuse, for example, that they've 'created their own reality and circumstances'?Idiots!
I think this thread has illustrated my observation about believers ignoring contrary evidence and arguments. Of course, it is not as simple as 'belief is a process of ignoring' (I never thought it was!). But ignoring does seem to be one useful weapon for defending onself against inconvenient truths.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks