That the Big Bang had an observer.
alen
that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
can exist without being observed by an observer, and it is not
difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
anything existing without an observer.
If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to
observe it, I am observing it as having no observer, which
means that I am observing it, which means that it has an
observer, i.e., myself. It is therefore impossible to imagine
anything having no observer at all for, if I don't observe
it myself, I can't imagine it at all.
There is no way around this. If I say that my observation is
only in my imagination, and the reality itself doesn't have
an observer, I nevertheless have to admit that I can't think
about the 'reality itself' at all, independently of my
imagination, which is linked to every word I think about or
utter. But, since there is no other way that can enable me
to even think about the reality at all, to say 'the reality
itself doesn't have an observer' is not really a thought at all.
I can therefore imagine anything as not having this observer,
or that observer, or not having any of very many observers,
but not as having no observer at all.
It is therefore impossible for anyone to imagine the Big Bang
as having no observer and, consequently, impossible to discuss
it at all in that way. Anyone who does think to discuss it in
that way is really merely knitting words together, as it were,
which look as if they are saying something, but are really not
saying anything.
Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
a valid concept at all.
Alen
Fuquier
imagine them? That is just silly solipsism.
The 'observer' with respect to physics is not someone with imagination,
its simply the interaction of particles. A particle 'observes' another
through exchange of photons, etc. The better physical question that
arises from the philisophical one is 'can a universe with one particle
exist?' And that is just not very interesting.
Barry Trotter
alt.atheism, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> catapaulted the following
boulder:
essence of mental illness.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Chris H. Fleming
> George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> can exist without being observed by an observer, and it is not
> difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> anything existing without an observer.
What does that even mean? Most of the particles in the universe have
come in and out of existence without an observer.
> If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to
> observe it, I am observing it as having no observer, which
> means that I am observing it, which means that it has an
> observer, i.e., myself. It is therefore impossible to imagine
> anything having no observer at all for, if I don't observe
> it myself, I can't imagine it at all.
If you are imagining it, then you aren't observing it. That's a
semantic hijackery. Observer, as definied in science, means that
radiation comes from the observed to the observer. Observer, as
definied by you, means imaginer. The accepted definition implies
physical existence and has utility. Your definition doesn't. Those two
concepts are completely different and you never prooved any equivalence
between the two.
> There is no way around this. If I say that my observation is
> only in my imagination, and the reality itself doesn't have
> an observer, I nevertheless have to admit that I can't think
> about the 'reality itself' at all, independently of my
> imagination, which is linked to every word I think about or
> utter. But, since there is no other way that can enable me
> to even think about the reality at all, to say 'the reality
> itself doesn't have an observer' is not really a thought at all.
GIGO
> I can therefore imagine anything as not having this observer,
> or that observer, or not having any of very many observers,
> but not as having no observer at all.
GIGO
> It is therefore impossible for anyone to imagine the Big Bang
> as having no observer and, consequently, impossible to discuss
> it at all in that way. Anyone who does think to discuss it in
> that way is really merely knitting words together, as it were,
> which look as if they are saying something, but are really not
> saying anything.
Faulty logic aside, the Big Bang already has plenty of observers.
We observe cosmic microwave background radiation, the photons emitted
during baryogenisis.
> Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
> an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
> Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
> since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
> a valid concept at all.
Your definition of observer is, to put it kindly, without merit. So it
doesn't really matter what kinds of statements you make with that word
as per your definition.
Just as easily I could define "God==love" and make all kinds of
statements as to the nature of God, but it wouldn't mean anything
unless I first proved my definition to be equivalent to the accepted
definition.
> Alen
Fred Stone
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> can exist without being observed by an observer, and it is not
> difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> anything existing without an observer.
>
> If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to
> observe it, I am observing it as having no observer, which
> means that I am observing it, which means that it has an
> observer, i.e., myself. It is therefore impossible to imagine
> anything having no observer at all for, if I don't observe
> it myself, I can't imagine it at all.
>
Imagination is not observation.
Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
Thanks for playing.
> There is no way around this. If I say that my observation is
> only in my imagination, and the reality itself doesn't have
> an observer, I nevertheless have to admit that I can't think
> about the 'reality itself' at all, independently of my
> imagination, which is linked to every word I think about or
> utter. But, since there is no other way that can enable me
> to even think about the reality at all, to say 'the reality
> itself doesn't have an observer' is not really a thought at all.
>
> I can therefore imagine anything as not having this observer,
> or that observer, or not having any of very many observers,
> but not as having no observer at all.
>
> It is therefore impossible for anyone to imagine the Big Bang
> as having no observer and, consequently, impossible to discuss
> it at all in that way. Anyone who does think to discuss it in
> that way is really merely knitting words together, as it were,
> which look as if they are saying something, but are really not
> saying anything.
>
> Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
> an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
> Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
> since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
> a valid concept at all.
>
> Alen
>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
Elroy Willis
> George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> can exist without being observed by an observer, and it is not
> difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> anything existing without an observer.
> If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to
> observe it, I am observing it as having no observer, which
> means that I am observing it, which means that it has an
> observer, i.e., myself. It is therefore impossible to imagine
> anything having no observer at all for, if I don't observe
> it myself, I can't imagine it at all.
Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
no one to observe it before it created any observers?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
wcb
Excellent! I love self defeating definitions!
Now let the bad rationalizations and special pleading
begin.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Mark K. Bilbo
<1116738319.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, alen pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical...
Time for a real job...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Elroy Willis
It's basically the same as the "everything created has to have a
creator" argument, which falls apart when you ask who created the
creator, right?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
alen
Fuquier wrote:
> So the properties of reality are contingent upon your ability to
> imagine them? That is just silly solipsism.
No, not my ability, but that of SOME observer
Alen
alen
Barry Trotter wrote:
> Imagining that your imagination is the substance of reality is the
> essence of mental illness.
>
> David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
That is not what I said.
Alen
wcb
Yes. Here though we have a self-referential paradox, which are always
fun too.
You could use set theory to model the collapse of claims about
unobserved observers ala Russell's set of all sets pradoxes.
If a thing cannot exist unless its observed, does an uncaused observer
observe itself or not?
alen
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> > If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to
> > observe it, I am observing it as having no observer, which
> > means that I am observing it, which means that it has an
> > observer, i.e., myself. It is therefore impossible to imagine
> > anything having no observer at all for, if I don't observe
> > it myself, I can't imagine it at all.
>
> If you are imagining it, then you aren't observing it. That's a
> semantic hijackery. Observer, as definied in science, means that
> radiation comes from the observed to the observer. Observer, as
> definied by you, means imaginer. The accepted definition implies
> physical existence and has utility. Your definition doesn't. Those
two
> concepts are completely different and you never prooved any
equivalence
> between the two.
The argument is not about something that is being
observed, but about something that is not being
observed. By definition, you can't talk about
something as not being observed by you if you
are observing it. Hence the necessary role
of imagination.
Alen
Abner Mintz
> Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
> no one to observe it before it created any observers?
You see, that's why he *really* created people: so he would
have people observing him and not cease to exist. He made
them with immortal souls as a fail-safe; even if every person
died, they'd still be able to observe him, so he was safe.
When people die, their souls go off to heaven where they
can observe him for eternity, for otherwise God might go
out *pliff* like a candle-flame as soon as no-one was
bothering to watch him. This is why he requires eternal
worship and devotion - or at least observation.
Of course, now that he has enough eternal worshipping
souls that he feels safe, he doesn't really need any more
worshippers, so he stopped intervening on earth etc. once
he hit the critical level and didn't need any more. From
God's perspective humanity has already fulfilled its function,
and any more worshippers to watch him are basically
gilding the lily. In fact, he's getting a bit irritated at the
entire business, and may soon stop watching the world,
at which point *we* will go pliff.
Right? :) So, what should we call this theology?
Reef Fish
wcb wrote:
> >
> > It's basically the same as the "everything created has to have a
> > creator" argument, which falls apart when you ask who created the
> > creator, right?
> >
creator.
>
>
> Yes. Here though we have a self-referential paradox, which are always
> fun too.
> You could use set theory to model the collapse of claims about
> unobserved observers ala Russell's set of all sets pradoxes.
In the context of Russell's paradox, the question would be, "Did the
god who creates everything create himself?"
alen
Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
> no one to observe it before it created any observers?
>
> --
> Elroy Willis
> www.elroysemporium.com
Nothing can exist without an observer, god or not.
Therion Ware
On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:34:25 GMT in alt.atheism, Abner Mintz
(abner...@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Potentially quite profitable?
alen
wcb wrote:
> If a thing cannot exist unless its observed, does an uncaused
observer
> observe itself or not?
The answer would have to be yes, since nothing
can exist without an observer.
Alen
Scott
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1116759954.a0ffe43acc7a9cb6a47a15627f09b923@teranews...
snip the schroeder cat
>>
>
> Imagination is not observation.
>
> Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
Out of curiosity, why is that since they are only arguements and not proofs?
Scott
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> can exist without being observed by an observer, ...
Incorrect. Berkeley claimed that the physical consisted solely of ideas.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/berkeley.htm
> and it is not
> difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> anything existing without an observer.
Where is the "observer" that keeps you in existence? What keeps that
observer in existence? Is it possible to observe the observer that
observes you? If several people observe a thing, then which one gets
credit for bringing it into existence? What happens if that person
ceases to observe the thing?
...
> Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
> an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
> Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
> since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
> a valid concept at all.
We are the observers of the Big Bang. Problem solved.
Regards,
Josef
Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained
only by someone who is detached.
-- Simone Weil
alen
This is an argument about realities being created
and not about realities being observed, which was
my original argument.
Alen
Barry Trotter
crap. You need to elaborate of you are to be taken seriously at all,
otherwise this thread is going to degenerate into ridicule.
alen
Josef Balluch wrote:
> > George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> > that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> > can exist without being observed by an observer, ...
>
>
> Incorrect. Berkeley claimed that the physical consisted solely of
ideas.
That doesn't really affect the argument. The objective
reality of something includes the objective reality of
its necessary observer.
> > and it is not
> > difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> > anything existing without an observer.
>
>
> Where is the "observer" that keeps you in existence? What keeps that
> observer in existence? Is it possible to observe the observer that
> observes you? If several people observe a thing, then which one gets
> credit for bringing it into existence? What happens if that person
> ceases to observe the thing?
Again, those questions don't affect the argument. It
doesn't matter if several observers observe something.
It is necessary to assert only that it has some necessary
observer.
> > Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
> > an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
> > Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
> > since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
> > a valid concept at all.
>
>
> We are the observers of the Big Bang. Problem solved.
> Regards,
No. Such an answer says that the Big Bang did not exist
before we existed.
Alen
alen
Fred Stone wrote:
>
> Imagination is not observation.
Did I say it was?
> Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
You can't get rid of them that easily.
Alen
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
>> no one to observe it before it created any observers?
> Nothing can exist without an observer, god or not.
So you don't actually believe in an eternal god, or any god at all?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
alen
Barry Trotter wrote:
> >
> >Nothing can exist without an observer, god or not.
> 15 billion years of history seems to indicate that you are talking
> crap. You need to elaborate of you are to be taken seriously at all,
> otherwise this thread is going to degenerate into ridicule.
It indicates nothing of the kind. Everything throughout
the 15 billion years must have had an observer, visible
or not. To say that it had no observer is only to construct
a string of words that together don't say anything, no
less than 2+2=5 doesn't say anything, but only appears to.
The mind always automatically thinks of everything as having
an observer, and cannot do otherwise.
Alen
alen
Elroy Willis wrote:
>
> So you don't actually believe in an eternal god, or any god at all?
I didn't say that.
Alen
Denis Loubet
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1116774769.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>>
>> Imagination is not observation.
>
> Did I say it was?
You DID write:
"If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to observe it, I am
observing it as having no observer, which means that I am observing it,
which means that it has an observer, i.e., myself."
Didn't you?
You seem to be clearly indicating that imagining something equals observing
that thing.
>> Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
>
> You can't get rid of them that easily.
The one you presented we can.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Barry Trotter
alt.atheism, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> catapaulted the following
boulder:
>
>
>> >
>> >Nothing can exist without an observer, god or not.
>
>> 15 billion years of history seems to indicate that you are talking
>> crap. You need to elaborate of you are to be taken seriously at all,
>> otherwise this thread is going to degenerate into ridicule.
>
>It indicates nothing of the kind. Everything throughout
>the 15 billion years must have had an observer, visible
>or not. To say that it had no observer is only to construct
>a string of words that together don't say anything, no
>less than 2+2=5 doesn't say anything, but only appears to.
>The mind always automatically thinks of everything as having
>an observer, and cannot do otherwise.
>
>Alen
Dolt.
Fred Stone
Fred Stone
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>>
>> Imagination is not observation.
>
> Did I say it was?
>
Yes, you did. Nice of you to snip the part where you said it.
>
>> Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
>
> You can't get rid of them that easily.
>
Although I can't make you STFU, I can point at you and laugh.
wcb
Consider this argument of Liebnez's that god could if he so desired
make 2 + 2 = 5.
That god makes the rules and laws of the Universe.
If so, god could make man with free wil who freely choses
to do only good.
If he could and did not, all evil would be directly caused by
god, he would be the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.
Moral evil exists.
So to avoid admitting god is the cause of all evil we have to say know.
So we know (as per Aquinas) that god cannot do the impossible.
But if 2 + 2 = 4 is something outside and beyond god, limiting him,
as would an near infinite number of similar facts, where do
these things, these facts, these laws, these rules of the Universe come
from?
Ontological proofs, starting with Anselm start with the claim god
is the greatest thing that can be imagined.
But no, these rules that 2 + 2 = 4 and such are greater still.
Even god must obey them.
These rules may concievable be that no being that has intelligence
and ability to act can exist that is not made of matter and
energy.
So much for the ontological proofs of Anselm, Descarte and others.
And now we have to account for where do facts like 2 + 2 = 4 come from.
Abner Mintz
>>Right? :) So, what should we call this theology?
Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> Potentially quite profitable?
Just call me L. Ron Mintz? :)
wcb
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
>> no one to observe it before it created any observers?
>
> You see, that's why he *really* created people: so he would
> have people observing him and not cease to exist. He made
> them with immortal souls as a fail-safe; even if every person
> died, they'd still be able to observe him, so he was safe.
> When people die, their souls go off to heaven where they
> can observe him for eternity, for otherwise God might go
> out *pliff* like a candle-flame as soon as no-one was
> bothering to watch him. This is why he requires eternal
> worship and devotion - or at least observation.
Wait, wait, wait. Why humans? Why not cheaper hamsters or
fieldmice? They would be far more cost effective, you can
probably get about 1200 fieldmouse souls for every human soul.
And why souls from earth? Wouldn't a heaven made fieldmouse
soul be much .... cleaner?
>
> Of course, now that he has enough eternal worshipping
> souls that he feels safe,
Parrots? Why couldn't he use parrots then?
> he doesn't really need any more
> worshippers, so he stopped intervening on earth etc. once
> he hit the critical level and didn't need any more. From
> God's perspective humanity has already fulfilled its function,
> and any more worshippers to watch him are basically
> gilding the lily. In fact, he's getting a bit irritated at the
> entire business, and may soon stop watching the world,
> at which point *we* will go pliff.
>
> Right? :) So, what should we call this theology?
The One True Religion.
As always.
raven1
>Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
>an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
>Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
>since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
>a valid concept at all.
Where did the observer come from? Your argument is self-refuting.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> Josef Balluch wrote:
>
> > > George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> > > that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> > > can exist without being observed by an observer, ...
> >
> >
> > Incorrect. Berkeley claimed that the physical consisted solely of
> ideas.
>
> That doesn't really affect the argument. The objective
> reality of something includes the objective reality of
> its necessary observer.
And Berkeley was saying that there is no objective reality, and that
everything exists only in a mind.
> > > and it is not
> > > difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> > > anything existing without an observer.
> >
> >
> > Where is the "observer" that keeps you in existence? What keeps that
> > observer in existence? Is it possible to observe the observer that
> > observes you? If several people observe a thing, then which one gets
> > credit for bringing it into existence? What happens if that person
> > ceases to observe the thing?
>
> Again, those questions don't affect the argument.
Debatable. And if your paradigm is any good then it must have answers to
such questions.
> It
> doesn't matter if several observers observe something.
> It is necessary to assert only that it has some necessary
> observer.
It certainly matters if you posit that everything is simply ideas in a
mind.
> > > Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
> > > an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
> > > Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
> > > since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
> > > a valid concept at all.
> >
> >
> > We are the observers of the Big Bang. Problem solved.
>
> > Regards,
>
> No. Such an answer says that the Big Bang did not exist
> before we existed.
Did you observe that the BB preceded humanity? Or simply assume it? If
you were not present at the time then on what basis do you claim to KNOW
that the BB preceded us, or that it actually occurred?
Regards,
Josef
Belief in the supernatural is the shame of civilization.
-- Joseph Ernest Renan
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
Ontological Proof that there is a real (actually existent) magical fire
breathing dragon in my garage:
(1)An Actual magical fire breathing dragon in my garage is "greater
than" a non existent magical fire breathing dragon in my garage.
(2) Of the set of all magical fire breathing dragons in my garage there
must be a "greatest" magical fire breathing Dragon in my garage.
Conclusion:
There is an actual magical fire breathing dragon in my garage.
The argument is (or by adding enough suplimentary premises can be made)
valid - just extremly silly.
Is the Ontological argument for the existence of an actual magical fire
reathing dragon in my garage ridiculous or not?
Yes or No?
If it *is* then the Ontological argument for the actual existence of
God is likewise ridiculous.
You can't consistently and logically believe one and not the other.
Reasons why the argument fails:
(1)There is no such a relation as "greater than" that obviously applies
to gods or magical fire breathing dragons.
(2)You cannot argue things into existence.
(3) The set of all Gods and the set of all m.f.b.d. may be the empty
set - in which case even if you could find an ordering relation there
would be no elements to order and hence no "greatest" element to find.
(4)You cannot argue things into existence.
Mark.
alen
Josef Balluch wrote:
> In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
> the following:
> > That doesn't really affect the argument. The objective
> > reality of something includes the objective reality of
> > its necessary observer.
>
>
> And Berkeley was saying that there is no objective reality, and that
> everything exists only in a mind.
I feel that Berkeley has been misunderstood.
Interpretations of Berkeley will depend on whether
you call a mind 'objectively real' or not.
> > It
> > doesn't matter if several observers observe something.
> > It is necessary to assert only that it has some necessary
> > observer.
>
>
> It certainly matters if you posit that everything is simply ideas in
a
> mind.
Only if that also involves positing that no mind can
ever be in the sphere of another mind.
> > No. Such an answer says that the Big Bang did not exist
> > before we existed.
>
>
> Did you observe that the BB preceded humanity? Or simply assume it?
If
> you were not present at the time then on what basis do you claim to
KNOW
> that the BB preceded us, or that it actually occurred?
The theory is not my creation. The Big Bang is
presented as having existed before ourselves, and
our planet, and I was speaking of it in that
context. My argument is that, IF the Big Bang
existed before us, it nevertheless must have had
an observer.
Alen
alen
raven1 wrote:
> On 21 May 2005 22:05:19 -0700, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
> >an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
> >Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
> >since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
> >a valid concept at all.
>
> Where did the observer come from? Your argument is self-refuting.
No. That is a further question, and a legitimate
question. But, even if it presents a problem, it
cannot affect the current argument, which is
independent of it, and is established without
having to refer to it.
Alen
alen
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1116774769.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Fred Stone wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Imagination is not observation.
> >
> > Did I say it was?
>
> You DID write:
>
> "If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to observe it,
I am
> observing it as having no observer, which means that I am observing
it,
> which means that it has an observer, i.e., myself."
>
> Didn't you?
>
> You seem to be clearly indicating that imagining something equals
observing
> that thing.
No. I am saying that it equals knowing that
a thing exists when you are NOT directly
observing it.
Let me ask the question: what is the thought
process by means of which you adopt the view
that the local newsagent, for example, exists
when you are at home, and not actually observing
it?
Alen
alen
m.rich...@utas.edu.au wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> > news:1116759954.a0ffe43acc7a9cb6a47a15627f09b923@teranews...
> >
> > snip the schroeder cat
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > Imagination is not observation.
> > >
> > > Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why is that since they are only arguements and
not
> proofs?
> >
> > Scott
>
> Ontological Proof that there is a real (actually existent) magical
fire
> breathing dragon in my garage:
>
> (1)An Actual magical fire breathing dragon in my garage is "greater
> than" a non existent magical fire breathing dragon in my garage.
> (2) Of the set of all magical fire breathing dragons in my garage
there
> must be a "greatest" magical fire breathing Dragon in my garage.
> Conclusion:
> There is an actual magical fire breathing dragon in my garage.
>
> The argument is (or by adding enough suplimentary premises can be
made)
> valid - just extremly silly.
It is. The fallacy is that a non-existent reality
is not lesser than an existent reality. In order
for a reality to be less than another in some way,
it must first exist. If it doesn't exist, nothing
can be said of it.
Alen
raven1
>
>raven1 wrote:
>> On 21 May 2005 22:05:19 -0700, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Thus we are compelled to understand that the Big Bang did have
>> >an observer like ourselves as observers, and anything in
>> >Cosmology that disagrees with this has to be a mistake,
>> >since even such a concept is, in itself, not really
>> >a valid concept at all.
>>
>> Where did the observer come from? Your argument is self-refuting.
>
>No. That is a further question, and a legitimate
>question.
Which inevitably contains either an infinite regress, or a special
pleading fallacy as an answer. Take your pick: it's either "turtles
all the way down", or an observer that came into being without the
event being observed.
>But, even if it presents a problem,
An insoluble one, I'm afraid.
> it
>cannot affect the current argument, which is
>independent of it, and is established without
>having to refer to it.
No, it's an example of the GIGO principle, as you haven't established
that every event needs an observer, just asserted it from authority,
which is why it's unsurprising that the argument collapses when
analyzed..
raven1
>
>The theory is not my creation. The Big Bang is
>presented as having existed before ourselves, and
>our planet, and I was speaking of it in that
>context. My argument is that, IF the Big Bang
>existed before us, it nevertheless must have had
>an observer.
Or it could be that the field of ontology is a form of linguistic
omphalism without any connection to the actual physical world.
Denis Loubet
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:1116774769.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Fred Stone wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Imagination is not observation.
>> >
>> > Did I say it was?
>>
>> You DID write:
>>
>> "If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to observe it,
> I am
>> observing it as having no observer, which means that I am observing
> it,
>> which means that it has an observer, i.e., myself."
>>
>> Didn't you?
>>
>> You seem to be clearly indicating that imagining something equals
> observing
>> that thing.
>
> No. I am saying that it equals knowing that
> a thing exists when you are NOT directly
> observing it.
That's even MORE stupid. I can imagine all sorts of things that I KNOW don't
exist.
> Let me ask the question: what is the thought
> process by means of which you adopt the view
> that the local newsagent, for example, exists
> when you are at home, and not actually observing
> it?
What has that got to do with anything you've said?
To answer: Consistency.
That's what knowledge is, consistency. Science is the identification,
cataloging, and explanation of observed consistency. Thus I think the
newsagent is there because consistency suggests it is, and provides a
justification to think so.
Now if you want to delve into solipsism, that's fine by me. I have no
problem with solipsism. Everything I experience may be a complete
fabrication like in The Matrix. Whether this is true or not is utterly
irrelevant to me. My drives, desires, and preferences remain the same, and
since the reality I find myself in, be it true or false, is the only one I
can experience. That being the case, it behooves me to treat it as real so
that I may allow my preferences to be satisfied. I can only do that by
identifying the consistencies in my real or false universe and using them to
better predict the consequences of my actions and those of others.
Is that what you wanted? Note that I do not claim that what I experience is
real, I claim that it doesn't matter if it's real or not.
The Great Hairy One
al...@westserv.net.au says...
Gidday Alen,
> George Berkeley is well known for his philosophical argument
> that 'to be is to be perceived', which is to say that nothing
> can exist without being observed by an observer, and it is not
> difficult to prove that it is impossible to even imagine
> anything existing without an observer.
The Big Bang did have an observer - us. We can observe the remnants of
the Big Bang in the cosmic radiation which permeates space. Everytime
you turn on your TV and you get static, you are looking at some of the
original cosmic radiation.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
The Great Hairy One
@westserv.net.au says...
Gidday Alen,
> It indicates nothing of the kind. Everything throughout
> the 15 billion years must have had an observer, visible
> or not.
Why? There is no one in my bathroom at the moment - does it cease to
exist, since it is not being observed?
> To say that it had no observer is only to construct
> a string of words that together don't say anything, no
> less than 2+2=5 doesn't say anything, but only appears to.
> The mind always automatically thinks of everything as having
> an observer, and cannot do otherwise.
No, I don't think so. Your argument is based on Berkeley's faulty
premise that everything must be observed to exist. If this was the case,
quarks would not exist. Photons would not exist. Bacteria and viruses
would not exist.
Berkeley's argument is a misreading of the Shrodinger's Cat argument.
Without observation we can not tell what *state* the object is in - but
the object still exists.
The Great Hairy One
al...@westserv.net.au says...
> I didn't say that.
Then who, or what, observes the christian god-concept?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> wcb <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> If I try to imagine something existing without anyone to
>>>>> observe it, I am observing it as having no observer, which
>>>>> means that I am observing it, which means that it has an
>>>>> observer, i.e., myself. It is therefore impossible to imagine
>>>>> anything having no observer at all for, if I don't observe
>>>>> it myself, I can't imagine it at all.
>>>> Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
>>>> no one to observe it before it created any observers?
>>> Excellent! I love self defeating definitions!
>>> Now let the bad rationalizations and special pleading
>>> begin.
>> It's basically the same as the "everything created has to have a
>> creator" argument, which falls apart when you ask who created the
>> creator, right?
> Yes. Here though we have a self-referential paradox, which are always
> fun too.
> You could use set theory to model the collapse of claims about
> unobserved observers ala Russell's set of all sets pradoxes.
> If a thing cannot exist unless its observed, does an uncaused observer
> observe itself or not?
Does it have actual eyes?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> Are you a theist? If so, how could your god initially exist with
>> no one to observe it before it created any observers?
> You see, that's why he *really* created people: so he would
> have people observing him and not cease to exist. He made
> them with immortal souls as a fail-safe; even if every person
> died, they'd still be able to observe him, so he was safe.
> When people die, their souls go off to heaven where they
> can observe him for eternity, for otherwise God might go
> out *pliff* like a candle-flame as soon as no-one was
> bothering to watch him. This is why he requires eternal
> worship and devotion - or at least observation.
> Of course, now that he has enough eternal worshipping
> souls that he feels safe, he doesn't really need any more
> worshippers, so he stopped intervening on earth etc. once
> he hit the critical level and didn't need any more. From
> God's perspective humanity has already fulfilled its function,
> and any more worshippers to watch him are basically
> gilding the lily. In fact, he's getting a bit irritated at the
> entire business, and may soon stop watching the world,
> at which point *we* will go pliff.
> Right? :) So, what should we call this theology?
Hmm... Peeperism?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> wcb wrote:
>> If a thing cannot exist unless its observed, does an uncaused
>> observer observe itself or not?
> The answer would have to be yes, since nothing
> can exist without an observer.
An observer with eyes?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> If several people observe a thing, then which one gets credit for bringing
> it into existence?
Excellent question!
"I saw it first!"
"No, I did!"
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>> The theory is not my creation. The Big Bang is
>> presented as having existed before ourselves, and
>> our planet, and I was speaking of it in that
>> context. My argument is that, IF the Big Bang
>> existed before us, it nevertheless must have had
>> an observer.
> Or it could be that the field of ontology is a form of linguistic
> omphalism without any connection to the actual physical world.
Omphalism?
Good gawd, that's all we need around here... Another "ism" to clutter
up and confuse our language...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
alen
> >> You seem to be clearly indicating that imagining something equals
> > observing
> >> that thing.
> >
> > No. I am saying that it equals knowing that
> > a thing exists when you are NOT directly
> > observing it.
>
> That's even MORE stupid.
No, it isn't.
> > Let me ask the question: what is the thought
> > process by means of which you adopt the view
> > that the local newsagent, for example, exists
> > when you are at home, and not actually observing
> > it?
>
> What has that got to do with anything you've said?
>
> To answer: Consistency.
>
> That's what knowledge is, consistency. Science is the identification,
> cataloging, and explanation of observed consistency. Thus I think the
> newsagent is there because consistency suggests it is, and provides a
> justification to think so.
Very good. I agree. You can consistently prove your
expectation that the newsagent is there by repeated
experiments. But my question is: what is the content
of such an expectation? How is it formulated? That
can be only by the use of the mind, or imagination,
and not observation, because you are at home, and
cannot observe the newsagent. Thus, the mind or
imagination is necessarily involved. Yet people want
to dismiss my argument out of hand simply because I
mention the imagination. But, in reality, it can't
be avoided.
Alen
alen
The reality indicated by the concept of 'observation'
must exist, whatever the mechanism.
Alen
Denis Loubet
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:1116817852.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> You seem to be clearly indicating that imagining something equals
>> > observing
>> >> that thing.
>> >
>> > No. I am saying that it equals knowing that
>> > a thing exists when you are NOT directly
>> > observing it.
>>
>> That's even MORE stupid.
>
> No, it isn't.
Then how do you explain my ability to imagine things I know don't exist?
>> > Let me ask the question: what is the thought
>> > process by means of which you adopt the view
>> > that the local newsagent, for example, exists
>> > when you are at home, and not actually observing
>> > it?
>>
>> What has that got to do with anything you've said?
>>
>> To answer: Consistency.
>>
>> That's what knowledge is, consistency. Science is the identification,
>
>> cataloging, and explanation of observed consistency. Thus I think the
>
>> newsagent is there because consistency suggests it is, and provides a
>
>> justification to think so.
>
> Very good. I agree. You can consistently prove your
> expectation that the newsagent is there by repeated
> experiments. But my question is: what is the content
> of such an expectation? How is it formulated? That
> can be only by the use of the mind, or imagination,
> and not observation, because you are at home, and
> cannot observe the newsagent.
Ok. But my imagination has nothing to do with reality.
> Thus, the mind or
> imagination is necessarily involved. Yet people want
> to dismiss my argument out of hand simply because I
> mention the imagination. But, in reality, it can't
> be avoided.
They dismissed your argument out of hand because it was so badly phrased.
You seemed to be saying that anything we can imagine is somehow real.
Scott
"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:1191jei...@corp.supernews.com...
> Scott wrote:
>
>>
>> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
>> news:1116759954.a0ffe43acc7a9cb6a47a15627f09b923@teranews...
>>
>> snip the schroeder cat
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Imagination is not observation.
>>>
>>> Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, why is that since they are only arguements and not
>> proofs?
>
>
> Consider this argument of Liebnez's that god could if he so desired
> make 2 + 2 = 5.
> That god makes the rules and laws of the Universe.
or maybe those rules and laws are a necessary reflections of some god.
http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html
>
> If so, god could make man with free wil who freely choses
> to do only good.
> If he could and did not, all evil would be directly caused by
> god, he would be the creator and sustaining cause of all evil.
> Moral evil exists.
whoop!
<it's off to the metaphysical races once again.>
Here's an obvious problem for you, wcb. Your argument assume Evil actually
does exist. That *is* doing metaphysics of a sort that denies Naturalism.
> So to avoid admitting god is the cause of all evil we have to say know.
For the theist, the *truth* of the paradox is that if god did not exist evil
could not exist. That may also be true of Naturalism. There are no gods nor
evils in nature.
>
>
> So we know (as per Aquinas) that god cannot do the impossible.
>
> But if 2 + 2 = 4 is something outside and beyond god, limiting him,
> as would an near infinite number of similar facts, where do
> these things, these facts, these laws, these rules of the Universe come
> from?
>
> Ontological proofs, starting with Anselm start with the claim god
> is the greatest thing that can be imagined.
> But no, these rules that 2 + 2 = 4 and such are greater still.
> Even god must obey them.
>
> These rules may concievable be that no being that has intelligence
> and ability to act can exist that is not made of matter and
> energy.
And here you contradict yourself. Why? This last paragraph assumes
materialism and naturalism to be the essence of reality. Such a reality is
monism as opposed to dualism (pluralism). Immaterial beings or qualities do
not exist. (If a god exists it would have to be something like pantheism.)
Therefore: Along with gods there is no existence for the other immaterial
thingybops such as angels, devils, souls, spiritual afterlife, heaven, hell,
and???? And what? MORAL TRUTHs. Therein is your contradiction to
naturalism/materialism. Naturism is not only a-theist it is equally
a-moralistic. You said Evil exist. Prove it. Prove it without slipping into
some metaphysical argument. I know you nor any materialist/naturalist I've
put this can't do so. The is no scientific evidence you could conjure up to
support a belief that evil exist. Not any.
Since Naturalism is amoral it is inherently *met-ethically* nihilistic. To
hold to a lack of belief in non material things we not only kill of gods we
kill off Moral Realism. And since they *are* similar, any argument you give
on some god, you could substitute the same for ethics.
Again, you said "moral evil exist" but you used it in the sense of moral
realism. You can't do that and hold to a naturalism at the same time. Evil
can exist as a realism, but only if naturalistic monism (aka
Naturalism/Materialism) is rejected for dualism. There is no getting out of
that. It's a foregone conclusion.
Now we can, however, drop down from the Meta and into Normative ethics. But
since there is no *true* meta-ethic (no moral realism) there is no
truth-values in morality. Where does that leave us? There are no moral
absolutes of any kind, and that includes both murder and Human Rights. There
is no Situational Ethics (aka Moral Objectivism, not to be confused with
Moral Absolutism). In Situational Ethics the right or wrong is *relative* to
the circumstances of the *factual* situation. Since factual situations are
*objective* in nature, Naturalism could not be amoral. Nature would have to
have moral meaning open to scientific investigations.
Since we must drop down into the normative from the meta and we know
morality is *practiced* by humans, what can scientifically investigation
tell us about morality?
Social Sciences (SS): Anthropology, Sociology.
To set up my point about gods and morality being similar, I start with gods:
We know that cultures, both historically and at present, structure their
societies around beliefs in gods. How theists interact based upon *their*
theistic beliefs is *relative* to that culture's intersubjectivism, their
*norms*. What the SS's can say is that *people* (the material thing) poses
metaphysical beliefs and structure their society based upon that belief.
What science can't say is that this or any other metaphysical thing is REAL.
IOW the belief *about* the god thing is real but the thing in itself is not
real...as per Naturalism. Question: If a person were to consider a theistic
belief/*way*, how would he go about choosing? Since there are no
truth-values about gods open to science and naturalism there is no
*rational* way to make a choice. So the choice of which god to choose would
seem arbitrary. Since the philosophical position (atheism) doesn't support
gods of what point would it be for two atheists to argue over theology
If you haven't guessed were I going, the EXACT same argument holds for
morals. To the social sciences morality is moral relativism. Meaning which,
morality is relative to cultural *norms*. All too often I see so-called
naturalist/materialist making the mistake of equating moral relativism
and/or moral subjectivism (individual relativism) to Situational Ethics
since the moral *truth* is relative to the facts. For Naturalism, that is a
fallacy, a Naturalistic Fallacy. Why? Because it assumes moral *facts* about
situations that are independent of (and to) individuals' moral beliefs about
the facts. IOW the belief *about* the ethical thing (Human Rights) is real
but the thing in itself (Human Rights) is not real...as per Naturalism. If a
person were to consider a moral belief/*way* (a moral code), how would he go
about choosing? Since there are no moral truth-values open to science and
naturalism there is no *rational* way to make a choice. So the choice of
which moral code to choose would seem arbitrary. In a multi-cultural society
pick a culture, its norms and moral code is all an arbitrary choice....as
per Naturalism. Since the philosophical position (Naturalism) not only
doesn't support gods it equally doesn't support moral truths of what point
would it be for two naturalist to argue over ethics? All moral opinions then
are correct and equivalent.
Subjectivism:
- "no person's moral beliefs are any better or more correct than any other,
for that would assume some objective standard against which those beliefs
can be assessed."
Cultural relativism:
- "a person must look to the norms of his or her culture to determine what
the right thing to do is."
- "no society's views are better or more correct than any other's."
The ethical arguments of liberalism is no better nor worst then the ethical
arguments from conservatives.
To Naturalism, both ethicists and theologians are in the business of
inventing mythologies that are coherent but not in any way relevant to
reality. They both are in the business of myth making.There is no such thing
as Moral Progress.
It means that a society based upon, say, Nazism is not committing an evil
act by gassing Jews since good and evil are relative to Nazi social
norms/custom. And since morality is relative to social norms, there are no
"rationally identifiable trans-cultural and trans-historical moral truths"
as human rights' claimed to be.
Ah! But maybe you'd like to base your moral philosophy upon some "normal"
human-evolved behaviorism? That won't work since anything you'd come up with
will fall into G. E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy. "Normal" like "good" is
indefinable. What's normal simply begs the question. Good, as Moore so aptly
demonstrated, is a non-natural quality. For example, Nazism *is* natural
human behaviorism. You couldn't say it's not natural without contradicting
Naturalism. But maybe a person would think Nazism isn't normal so therefore
it is immoral? What's naturally normal is moral and what not naturally
normal is immoral. Consider, homosexuality isn't the normal (or is it?).
"Normal" is indefinable. Any attempt you make to base ethics upon any
behaviorism will generate the fallacy.
>
> So much for the ontological proofs of Anselm, Descarte and others.
So where does all this leave us? Are there arguments for moral objectivism
(moral truth)? Yes. But they are based upon negating arguments to Moral
Relativism/Subjectivism and ipso facto, a foregone concluding denial of
Naturalism....just like ontological arguments.
All ethical arguments, like all ontological arguments, are bullshit!......as
per Naturalism.
There are no natural morals. Therefore, there are no Natural Rights, and no
inherent human dignities to be found anywhere in Nature. Those are the stuff
of fantasy...just like gods.
> And now we have to account for where do facts like 2 + 2 = 4 come from.
Actually, I wondering where your Moral Evil exists comes from.
Some links you may need to read before you respond to anything I've written
above because everything I've written above can be supported with links.
Such as:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm
"The essential prerequisites for a defense of human rights also include a
conception of the individual as the bearer of certain 'natural' rights and a
particular view of the inherent and equal moral worth of each rational
individual. I shall discuss each in turn....Human rights rest upon moral
universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral
community comprising all human beings. Moral universalism posits the
existence of rationally identifiable trans-cultural and trans-historical
moral truths."
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/other.htm
I've got more links if you need them...or if I need them to support my
argument.
> --
>
> When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
When I shake most naturalists, I usually hear his moral metaphysics buzzing
:-)
Scott
> Cheerful Charlie
Scott
<m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1116813628.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Just like you can't with morals and ethics!!!
> (3) The set of all Gods and the set of all m.f.b.d. may be the empty
> set - in which case even if you could find an ordering relation there
> would be no elements to order and hence no "greatest" element to find.
> (4)You cannot argue things into existence.
Just like with Human Rights and Human dignity!!!
Just like with liberalism is ethically superior to conservatism!!!
Just like with Humanism is ethically superior to Nazism!!!
Just like.....etc.
Now you could say you prefer one to the other but so what.... or BFD as the
saying goes?
Scott
Paul Robinson
> than an existent reality. In order for a reality to be less
> than another in some way, it must first exist. If it doesn't
> exist, nothing can be said of it.
Uh, shall we try that again and see where the errors in your thinking
are?
Have you ever watched any science-fiction program? Have you noticed
that they talk about things like starships, faster-than-light Warp
drives, anti-matter, alternate realities, alternate universes, and
lots of other theoretical concepts, none of which exist?.
None of these things exist, none of them can be proven to exist, and
yet they do a pretty good job discussing them and doing stories about
them.
A fictional and non-existent concept can be discussed as easily as one
that has concrete reality. To the extent two or more people agree on
the rules (if any) regarding the concept, it is quite possible to
discuss the issue even if it is totally without existence and cannot be
proven or validated.
I think that being an agnostic helps me here as I am neither
contaminated by christian religious mythology nor blinded by atheist
religious mythology.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What "atheist religious mythology"? Hint: that's a figment of your
imagination.
wcb
If evil does not exist, than all religions that have bibles
and Qurans where god preaches against evil are lies and frauds.
I will leave that to explain to all those Christians and Moslems
out there. Write back when you have them straightened out.
Amazing how there is no such thing as evil. I guess god in the bible was
just confused. He was unlucky he didn't have a self elected expert
to get on the net and show him he was wrong.
Thus, you aren't convincing to us that are aguing something specific,
and not to those who I am debunking.
I mean, Hitler killing all those Jews, since evil doesn't exist, that
wasn't bad at all.
That will be news to theists and Atheists alike.
Why, evil doesn't exist folks! I guess ethics and morals are
an error also!
Cheerful Charlie
--
Cheerful Charlie
raven1
Actually, it makes things much clearer as far as "alen" is
concerned...
Paul Robinson
> so desired make 2 + 2 = 5. That god makes the rules
> and laws of the Universe.
Consider for a moment that instead of being in the physical world,
someone had figured a way to transfer our souls to a computer system
such that what we are, instead of organic electrical entities whose
existence operates on the proteins and fats of a brain, we became
simple electrical entities whose existence operates on the circuitry of
a computer system.
Now, can the rules of the computer system be changed to make 2+2 equal
5? The answer to that question is left as an exercise to the reader.
Consider what .3333333 + .3333333 + .3333334 equals when the system
is not trained to round correctly. Hint: it's not 1.
Now, what's your evidence that the real world is not simply an
halucination draped over your senses? Yeah, you can argue it either
way, but you can't prove it. Now, yes, I know the party making the
argument is the one who is under the burden of proof, but the point
being is that the issue is not provable either way.
> If so, god could make man with free wil who freely choses
> to do only good. If he could and did not, all evil would be
> directly caused by god, he would be the creator and
> sustaining cause of all evil.
Well, one of the big flaws in the argument in favor of God is that you
cannot have omniscience and free will. It's also arguable that if
people are evil, and God made them, some form of manufacturer liability
is relevant. If God made people, he is responsible for their actions
because he had the capacity to know what they would do and made no
effort to stop them.
One of the points of Christian mythology holds individuals responsible
for being contaminated by sin as a result of someone else's actions.
Well, if the actions of Adam and Eve can contaminate all their
descendents, and the resulting evil was their cause, then it stands to
reason that God, as having made people, is also responsible for his
actions and causing all evil that exists.
If there is a mud patch in your front lawn, and you send your kids out
to play, and they get dirty, are they to blame for it? If you continue
to allow them, and their kids, to trip over it instead of draining the
water out of it so the mud dries, doesn't that mean that you don't seem
to mind it being there?
To the extent God has the power to remove evil and does not, he is
tolerating its existence and accepts it as valid. To the extent that
you find something unacceptable, do nothing about it, then blame others
for the unacceptable condition that you yourself are so indifferent to
that you make no effort to change it, represents rank hypocricy of the
worst kind.
> Moral evil exists.
> So to avoid admitting god is the cause of all evil we have
> to say know.
>
> So we know (as per Aquinas) that god cannot do the
> impossible.
First, define what is 'impossible'. Chances are, you don't really know
all things that are, or are not, possible and you probably don't have a
good rule to define impossible. Ayn Rand gives the example of an
object, such as a leaf, being both all red and all green at the same
time. But over what discrete period of time? If it changes color 60
times a second because it's got built-in color generators, so that it
never stays the same color all the time, is the point still valid?
If it's a programmed leaf, such that for you, it appears all green, and
for me, it appears all red, does the analogy still hold?
Exactly what do you define as 'impossible'?
> But if 2 + 2 = 4 is something outside and beyond god,
> limiting him, as would an near infinite number of similar
> facts, where do these things, these facts, these laws,
> these rules of the Universe come from?
2+2=4. is not a law of the universe. It is a specification in
mathematics. Mathematics is a system of symbol manipulation to produce
certain results. Some of what mathematics provides to us is useful in
the real world, but one thing you are either ignoring, or are unaware
of, is that mathematics has no content.
Mathematics is strictly an abstract science. All mathematical
operations are arbitrary, founded upon someone deciding what the rules
are to be for the manipulation of the symbols being used. In simpler
terms, what we do in mathematics comes from someone "grabbing the
microphone" and stating what the rules should be, and then other
mathematicians by consensus agreeing that those rules are correct.
To those that argue that mathematics is not abstract and indeed
arbitrary, please show me where I can find a 2 or a 4? Not two
objects, or 4 things, but an actual 2 or 4 in reality. Where can I go
to mine or dig up a 2 or a 4? What factory manufactures 2s and 4s that
I can buy one? (And I'm not talking about house numbers; those are
pieces of metal or plastic bent into shapes or imprinted with ink or
paint; they are not the actual numbers, they are just symbols. )
I can go out and find a piece of wood. I can find a U.S. quarter which
was made. But I do not know of any place that has any 2 or 4 that I
can find them.
> Ontological proofs, starting with Anselm start with the
> claim god is the greatest thing that can be imagined.
> But no, these rules that 2 + 2 = 4 and such are greater
> still. Even god must obey them.
Put us into a reality simulator and if I can get access to the system
code and reprogram it, I can make 2+2=5 if I want. Every time you
tried to add them together it would always come up 5 even though you
might know it's supposed to be 4. If someone can get access to
whatever runs the real world, if such a thing exists, they could change
the rules to make 2+2=5 if they wanted to.
Again, the only reason 2+2 = 4 is because a bunch of mathematicians
arbitrarily chose it to do that. Does not guarantee anything. If we
did this in Roman Numberals, we'd get II + II = IV. But if you didn't
know it was Roman numerals, you'd be arguing II+II = 22.
> These rules may concievable be that no being that has
> intelligence and ability to act can exist that is not made
> of matter and energy.
Only need energy. Let's go back to our reality simulator. Runs on
various hardware. Hardware including memory and disk drives are the
same whether or not we, as existent processes are running on it. Has
energy running through it. So now we are running on it. We are
energy. Doesn't mean we have any constituent parts as matter, we may
be nothing but pure energy flux running on a computer system that
simulates the universe.
Or a computer system that *is* the universe. Put up 5 or 6 billion
processors, each equivalent to all the computer power now running every
computer on the Internet, and network them so we can talk to each
other. Does it have the power and capacity to support human thought?
People only think at 200 mph, light and electricity move more than
320,000 times faster than that.
Is the argument something within the range of reasonable?
Not that the idea of the universe as a computer system can be proven
but I'm not trying to claim that it is correct, just that it is an
arguable conclusion that is within reason to make.
> So much for the ontological proofs of Anselm, Descarte
> and others.
They're usually all tail chasing. They can't really prove anything,
just make noise over what they believe. Doesn't make any of their
beliefs any more valid than any others.
> And now we have to account for where do facts like
> 2 + 2 = 4 come from.
2+2=4 comes from the arbitrary dictates of mathematicians of what they
claim the rules of mathematics are.
I think you can do better than this. But keep trying. In the mean
time, we have some nice parting gifts for you, thank you for playing.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> Josef Balluch wrote:
> > In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
> > the following:
>
> > > That doesn't really affect the argument. The objective
> > > reality of something includes the objective reality of
> > > its necessary observer.
> >
> >
> > And Berkeley was saying that there is no objective reality, and that
> > everything exists only in a mind.
>
> I feel that Berkeley has been misunderstood.
He has certainly been misunderstood by you.
> Interpretations of Berkeley will depend on whether
> you call a mind 'objectively real' or not.
That would seem to be irrelevant. Berkeley is saying that reality is
subjective, ie: dependent on a mind.
> > > It
> > > doesn't matter if several observers observe something.
> > > It is necessary to assert only that it has some necessary
> > > observer.
> >
> >
> > It certainly matters if you posit that everything is simply ideas in
> a
> > mind.
>
> Only if that also involves positing that no mind can
> ever be in the sphere of another mind.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. If it means that no mind can
directly perceive another mind, then that would certainly appear to be
the case.
The point I am making here is that if everything is simply ideas in the
mind, then there is no guarantee that your ideas will be identical to my
ideas. There is then no guarantee that you can "observe" the things that
I "observe".
> > > No. Such an answer says that the Big Bang did not exist
> > > before we existed.
> >
> >
> > Did you observe that the BB preceded humanity? Or simply assume it?
> If
> > you were not present at the time then on what basis do you claim to
> KNOW
> > that the BB preceded us, or that it actually occurred?
>
> The theory is not my creation. The Big Bang is
> presented as having existed before ourselves, and
> our planet, and I was speaking of it in that
> context.
And my point is: How do you KNOW it happened, if you were not an
observer? Do you acknowledge that you can know of things that were not
created by your "observation"?
> My argument is that, IF the Big Bang
> existed before us, it nevertheless must have had
> an observer.
And as you stated in your original post, your imagining something is an
"observation". Thus we can certainly be the "observers" of a BB that
preceded us.
Regards,
Josef
God is the Asylum of Ignorance.
-- Baruch Spinoza
alen
Josef Balluch wrote:
> In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
> the following:
> > The theory is not my creation. The Big Bang is
> > presented as having existed before ourselves, and
> > our planet, and I was speaking of it in that
> > context.
>
>
> And my point is: How do you KNOW it happened, if you were not an
> observer? Do you acknowledge that you can know of things that were
not
> created by your "observation"?
I didn't say I know it happened. It is a theory
supported by evidence that many scientists accept.
My point is that to even create a concept of
something that existed before myself, I have to
include the concept of an observer that also
existed before myself, since I always project an
observation of everything I conceive, and cannot
do otherwise.
>
> > My argument is that, IF the Big Bang
> > existed before us, it nevertheless must have had
> > an observer.
>
>
>
> And as you stated in your original post, your imagining something is
an
> "observation". Thus we can certainly be the "observers" of a BB that
> preceded us.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
To even think the thought 'preceded us' you must
automatically include an observation that also
'preceded us', or you can't think the thought at all.
Alen
alen
Denis Loubet wrote:
> >
> > Very good. I agree. You can consistently prove your
> > expectation that the newsagent is there by repeated
> > experiments. But my question is: what is the content
> > of such an expectation? How is it formulated? That
> > can be only by the use of the mind, or imagination,
> > and not observation, because you are at home, and
> > cannot observe the newsagent.
>
> Ok. But my imagination has nothing to do with reality.
I don't agree. Can something be real that is fundamentally
impossible to imagine? If it is impossible to imagine,
it is impossible to name, or talk about, or even say it
exists. I say that a totally unobserved reality is
impossible to imagine, and is therefore impossible to
name, to talk about, or validly say it even exists.
It is therefore a reasonable view that nothing can
exist that cannot even be imagined by any mind and,
if it could exist, no mind could ever talk about it,
or even know it. Therefore, to say that something like
that existed would be totally meaningless.
Alen
Scott
The obvious question for me to ask is: So what or what difference does that
make to any thing? BTW IIRC doesn't the Koran say it is ok to lie to
infidels, or even kill them. I know in Iran, which is a culture based upon
the Koran, it is ok to kill anyone who isn't of a state sanctioned religion.
Although Islam gets preferential treatment, Judaism, and Christianity are
recognized but Bahai isn't (http://www.bahai.com/thebahais/pg59.htm). IOW if
you are in Iran, you must register with a state sanctioned religion, even
atheist must do so. If you do not, you have no legal protection. An Iranian
can kill you and not suffer a criminal charge.
>
> I will leave that to explain to all those Christians and Moslems
> out there. Write back when you have them straightened out.
Maybe they are the ones who are straightened out and you are one needing
straightening. After all, unlike your, they hold to a belief in moral
realism that has no incongruity with their (theistic) dualism. You, OTOH,
hold to a belief in moral realism that has incongruity with naturalism. But
hey, it's your cognitive dissonance.
>
> Amazing how there is no such thing as evil. I guess god in the bible was
> just confused.
What god? Naturalism holds there is no real god and no real morality.
He was unlucky he didn't have a self elected expert
> to get on the net and show him he was wrong.
Expert? No, I happen to understand Naturalism far better than you and a lot
of other self-proclaimed naturalists.
> Thus, you aren't convincing to us that are aguing something specific,
> and not to those who I am debunking.
Really? Are you as self elected expert? If you are, I noticed you didn't
make any attempt to debunk my arguments. Should've been easy for a expert
debunker like you. No?
> I mean, Hitler killing all those Jews, since evil doesn't exist, that
> wasn't bad at all.
No it wasn't, not for Hitler and his Nazis since it was *their* cultural
relativism. Nor is it evil from within naturalism since ethics doesn't exist
in nature. Never minding that "bad" like "good" can't be defined as anything
but an irreducible non-natural quality.
>
> That will be news to theists and Atheists alike.
> Why, evil doesn't exist folks! I guess ethics and morals are
> an error also!
No, to naturalism ethics would have to be irrealism and the stuff of fable,
fairytales, and myth. But you go on believing in your moral myths as rather
being the stuff of ethical realism. After all it *is* your cog dis.
Only rarely does it fail that when I shake a naturalist, I won't hear his
moral metaphysics buzzing from within. Your were no exception to that usual
observation. As one *real* naturalist put it: Humans are only intellegent
baboons that scratch themselves and throw shit at each other.
Scott
Denis Loubet
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Very good. I agree. You can consistently prove your
>> > expectation that the newsagent is there by repeated
>> > experiments. But my question is: what is the content
>> > of such an expectation? How is it formulated? That
>> > can be only by the use of the mind, or imagination,
>> > and not observation, because you are at home, and
>> > cannot observe the newsagent.
>>
>> Ok. But my imagination has nothing to do with reality.
>
> I don't agree. Can something be real that is fundamentally
> impossible to imagine?
Sure! Why not?
> If it is impossible to imagine,
> it is impossible to name, or talk about, or even say it
> exists.
None of that has anything to do with the reality of whatever it is.
> I say that a totally unobserved reality is
> impossible to imagine, and is therefore impossible to
> name, to talk about, or validly say it even exists.
That's irrelevant to whether it exists or not.
> It is therefore a reasonable view that nothing can
> exist that cannot even be imagined by any mind and,
> if it could exist, no mind could ever talk about it,
> or even know it.
I fail to see the connection. The reasonable view is that if there's
something that we cannot imagine or frame in any way, we'll never know. That
says absolutely nothing about whether whatever it is exists or not.
> Therefore, to say that something like
> that existed would be totally meaningless.
That's true, but has nothing to do with whether something like that exists
or not.
Richo
I would say ethics "exist" in a completely different sense to the way
beings exist (or dont exist).
I would say the source of ethics and morality is the existence of
concious beings capable of empathy.
>
> > (3) The set of all Gods and the set of all m.f.b.d. may be the
empty
> > set - in which case even if you could find an ordering relation
there
> > would be no elements to order and hence no "greatest" element to
find.
> > (4)You cannot argue things into existence.
>
> Just like with Human Rights and Human dignity!!!
> Just like with liberalism is ethically superior to conservatism!!!
> Just like with Humanism is ethically superior to Nazism!!!
> Just like.....etc.
>
> Now you could say you prefer one to the other but so what.... or BFD
as the
> saying goes?
>
Not entirely sure what you are on about.
You asked "why is it bullshit" and I told you, and now you are going on
about ethics apropos of nothing in particular.
My guess is you have some mytical belief that ethics and morality are
meaningless without a God.
Just a guess.
I don't share that belief so it's not a problem for me.
Mark.
Richo
alen wrote:
> m.rich...@utas.edu.au wrote:
> > Scott wrote:
> > > "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1116759954.a0ffe43acc7a9cb6a47a15627f09b923@teranews...
> > >
> > > snip the schroeder cat
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Imagination is not observation.
> > > >
> > > > Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, why is that since they are only arguements and
> not
> > proofs?
> > >
> > > Scott
> >
> > Ontological Proof that there is a real (actually existent) magical
> fire
> > breathing dragon in my garage:
> >
> > (1)An Actual magical fire breathing dragon in my garage is "greater
> > than" a non existent magical fire breathing dragon in my garage.
> > (2) Of the set of all magical fire breathing dragons in my garage
> there
> > must be a "greatest" magical fire breathing Dragon in my garage.
> > Conclusion:
> > There is an actual magical fire breathing dragon in my garage.
> >
> > The argument is (or by adding enough suplimentary premises can be
> made)
> > valid - just extremly silly.
>
> is not lesser than an existent reality. In order
> for a reality to be less than another in some way,
> it must first exist. If it doesn't exist, nothing
> can be said of it.
>
I wish that was true - but clearly theology exists.
Mark.
Eric Brze
<the.gre...@GEEmail.com> wrote:
>In article <1116775717.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>al...@westserv.net.au says...
>
>> I didn't say that.
>
>Then who, or what, observes the christian god-concept?
The concept of god is observed by the human mind, but God himself is
not a concept, therefore can't be observed or perceived by the mind.
To the mind, there are two kinds of existences, the perceivable
existence and the unperceivable existence. The universe is the
perceivable existence. God is the unperceivable existence.
>
>Cheers,
>TGHO
Barry Trotter
alt.atheism, Eric Brze <br...@no.spam.mail.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
>unperceivable existence.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Wim Morrison
the.gre...@GEEmail.com says...
> In article <1116775502....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, alen1
> @westserv.net.au says...
>
> Gidday Alen,
>
> > It indicates nothing of the kind. Everything throughout
> > the 15 billion years must have had an observer, visible
> > or not.
>
> Why? There is no one in my bathroom at the moment - does it cease to
> exist, since it is not being observed?
There once was man who said God
Must find it exceedingly odd
When he finds that a tree
Continues to be
When no-ones around in the Quad.
Dear sit your astonishment's odd
Concerning the tree in the Quad
For you see that the tree
Continues to be
While observed by, yours faithfully, God
--
Wim Morrison
ab...@html.com.au
wcb
>
> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:1194ltk...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1191jei...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1116759954.a0ffe43acc7a9cb6a47a15627f09b923@teranews...
>>>>>
>>>>> snip the schroeder cat
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagination is not observation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ontological arguments are all bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Out of curiosity, why is that since they are only arguements and not
>>>>> proofs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Consider this argument of Liebnez's that god could if he so desired
>>>> make 2 + 2 = 5.
>>>> That god makes the rules and laws of the Universe.
>>>
>>> or maybe those rules and laws are a necessary reflections of some god.
>>> http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If so, god could make man with free will who freely choses
Sighhhhhhhhhhh....
Why is this hard for you.
I show you that if god makes teh rules and laws and logic
of the Universe he allows all evil and thus is evil.
You then try to tell me evil does not exist.
What? Hitlers crimes are not evil?
As I point out, people with their heads screwed on right
know very well things like Hitler are evil.
You won't win any arguments with any religious believers,
nor atheists that moral evil exists.
You are wandering around in metaphysical circles lost in
your own inability to reason clearly.
Why would you deny evil exists? To try to win an argument
with bad reasoning. So I am trying to straighten you out,
but you can't be straightened out.
Yes, evil exists. The problem for religous people who posit
an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god is how to explain how a
god like that and evil can co-exist.
As an Atheist, I don't have that particular problem.
What this does if handled right is, I can use this to show
that god does not exist.
If a god that makes all the rules allows evil to exist, he is evil.
If not, there are other problems that undermine the concept ofgod.
damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So people try to subvert my argument by doing stupid things,
like telling me that evil doesn't exist.
Like you did.
And squalling and raving when I point out it most certainly does.
Hitler is a very obvious example of a morally evil man
who unleashed genocide and mass murder.
You have now lost the debate. And yet, you squall and dig
yourself a deeper hole.
What can I say?
> After all, unlike your, they hold to a belief in moral
> realism that has no incongruity with their (theistic) dualism. You, OTOH,
> hold to a belief in moral realism that has incongruity with naturalism.
> But hey, it's your cognitive dissonance.
So, Hitler's genocide isn't evil, and your squalling
bafflegab is proof of that. Eh wot?
Whats a little genocide and mass murder?
Why to accuse Hitler of being an evil moral agent is
just a bad example of the moral realism fallacy.
Debate over.
You can expect the alt.atheism regulars to think you are
a weirdo and a kook.
And any religous believer will tell you that you are
utterly full of crap.
Or you are a troll.
Cheerful Charlie
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> wcb wrote:
>>>> If a thing cannot exist unless its observed, does an uncaused
>>>> observer observe itself or not?
>>> The answer would have to be yes, since nothing
>>> can exist without an observer.
>> An observer with eyes?
> The reality indicated by the concept of 'observation'
> must exist, whatever the mechanism.
If a single atom or cosmic particle is enough to be considered an
observer, then that would suffice, right?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Robibnikoff
"Paul Robinson" <pa...@paul-robinson.us> wrote in message
news:1116884205....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
snipo
>
> I think that being an agnostic helps me here as I am neither
> contaminated by christian religious mythology nor blinded by atheist
> religious mythology.
Well, aren't you Mr. Perfect.
Go tell someone who gives a shit - PLONK
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
alen
raven1 wrote:
>
> No, it's an example of the GIGO principle, as you haven't established
> that every event needs an observer, just asserted it from authority,
> which is why it's unsurprising that the argument collapses when
> analyzed..
I didn't assert it from authority, but
from a conceptual impossibility.
Alen
alen
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1116901692.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Ok. But my imagination has nothing to do with reality.
> >
> > I don't agree. Can something be real that is fundamentally
> > impossible to imagine?
>
> Sure! Why not?
Because if you can't even imagine it you can't
say anything about it and 'it', therefore, doesn't
really mean anything at all.
> > I say that a totally unobserved reality is
> > impossible to imagine, and is therefore impossible to
> > name, to talk about, or validly say it even exists.
>
> That's irrelevant to whether it exists or not.
Again, what our remarks about 'it' amount to is
that 'it' means nothing at all, so that the only
valid conversation we can have about 'it' is that
our conversation about 'it' can't be valid.
>
> > It is therefore a reasonable view that nothing can
> > exist that cannot even be imagined by any mind and,
> > if it could exist, no mind could ever talk about it,
> > or even know it.
>
> I fail to see the connection. The reasonable view is that if there's
> something that we cannot imagine or frame in any way, we'll never
know. That
> says absolutely nothing about whether whatever it is exists or not.
> Denis Loubet
> dlo...@io.com
> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
It says that we can't even talk about it,
never mind include it in a theory.
Alen
alen
Paul Robinson wrote:
> > It is. The fallacy is that a non-existent reality is not lesser
> > than an existent reality. In order for a reality to be less
> > than another in some way, it must first exist. If it doesn't
> > exist, nothing can be said of it.
>
> Uh, shall we try that again and see where the errors in your thinking
> are?
>
> Have you ever watched any science-fiction program? Have you noticed
> that they talk about things like starships, faster-than-light Warp
> drives, anti-matter, alternate realities, alternate universes, and
> lots of other theoretical concepts, none of which exist?.
>
> None of these things exist, none of them can be proven to exist, and
> yet they do a pretty good job discussing them and doing stories about
> them.
They do have their own kind of existence. To take
a simpler example: a field in a picture of a field
exists as something hanging on the wall, but not as
what you see outside the window.
Alen
Scott
<Lame> to Christian theology God does allow evil
> You then try to tell me evil does not exist.
<rolling eyes> If naturalism is the correct metaphysical discription of
reality, then evil in fact does not exist as anything more than
fantasy...just like gods. Did you notice the qualifier?
If you believe evil is a real aspect of reality, you cannot hold to a belief
in Naturalism. No way and no how can you do so without being irrational.
>
> What? Hitlers crimes are not evil?
Assuming Naturalism, not to Hitler. Notice the qualifier?
>
> As I point out, people with their heads screwed on right
> know very well things like Hitler are evil.
Well...I might a agree with you on that....but then again I couldn't agree
with you and at the same time hold to a belief in Naturalism.
> You won't win any arguments with any religious believers,
> nor atheists that moral evil exists.
<rolling eyes> I'm not trying to win any arguments with any religious
believers....Heck I are one. I are a Catholic. I most certainly do believe
evil exist. However, if I must base an understand solely upon Natrualism
then I cannot show evil exists as anything more than fable, fairtale, and
myth....just like gods would have to be.
If I believe in evil, I must reject Naturalism for a belief in some form of
Dualism to my concept of reality. Naturalism and nature is amoral.
> You are wandering around in metaphysical circles lost in
> your own inability to reason clearly.
"Reason clearly"??? Oh? Are you making an appeal to reason?
>
> Why would you deny evil exists?
I did not deny evil exists. I am giving you an epistemology truth. If all
there is is Natural and Naturalism is its true metaphysic *then* there is no
such thing as evil. Notice the qualifier?
To try to win an argument
> with bad reasoning. So I am trying to straighten you out,
> but you can't be straightened out.
Actually, I'm thinking its the other way around.....But hey!! don't feel so
all alone. There are a lot of materialistic atheists who are ever bit as
ignorant to this moral epistemic based upon Naturalism as you. They wander
through ngs with their supposed moral *highground* and suposed lack of
mytaphysical beliefs deriding theists for believing in metaphyisics. Yet
here these so-called naturalists actually believe in their own moral
metaphyisics - moral truth. A bit hypocritical me thinks.
>
> Yes, evil exists. The problem for religous people who posit
> an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god is how to explain how a
> god like that and evil can co-exist.
To Catholicism, Evil is not a thing but an absence of good. Metaphorically,
think of it as a Black Hole, a negative. Evil is brought about by the abuse
of free will.
> As an Atheist, I don't have that particular problem.
Now that depends; It depends on whether or not you are an atheist and a
materialist/naturalist. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in god(s).
<period> That doesn't mean you can't believe in fairies, ghosts, souls,
angels, devil, good and evil. IOW you can lack a belief in god(s) but still
reject Naturalism/Materialism (monism) for a Dualism.
>
> What this does if handled right is, I can use this to show
> that god does not exist.
Really? Wouldn't you first have to show the evil *does* exist. Well? Go to
it. You give just one rational argumentive justification that evil exists.
That has been NO professional philosopher to date who has been able to do
so.....but who knows maybe you will prove to be the exception. You can,
however, make an appeal to reason without a rational justification but that
is simply a profession of faith. You wanting to do that?
>
> If a god that makes all the rules allows evil to exist, he is evil.
> If not, there are other problems that undermine the concept ofgod.
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum13&recnu=11&number=437957
>
> damned if you do, damned if you don't.
there's no hell in Naturalism.
>
> So people try to subvert my argument by doing stupid things,
> like telling me that evil doesn't exist.
> Like you did.
> And squalling and raving when I point out it most certainly does.
Prove it. Give me just 1 (one, uno) rationally justified argument for evil.
>
> Hitler is a very obvious example of a morally evil man
> who unleashed genocide and mass murder.
Why is genocide and mass murder evil? Just because it is? Because people are
kill? It's natural for people to die everyday. What makes any death a wrong.
Consider: If a lion kills a zebra, is the lion evil?
Better yet: If a male lion takes over a pride and kills the sired cubs of
the disposed male's is the pride's new dominate male evil? Or is it simply
lions acting out of natural lion behavior?
Aren't people an equal part of nature as lions? It is natural homo species
to form societies. It is also natural for these societies to compete with
each other for natural resourses. If eleminating the competition through
genocide increases a society's survival advantage is such action evil? Or is
it simply homo sapiens acting out of natural homo behavior?
What makes an act evil in Nature? Nothing. If you believe in evil you
disbelieve in Naturalism and hold to a belief in at least one metaphysic -
moral truth - eminating into the human experience not open to scientific
investigation.
>
> You have now lost the debate. And yet, you squall and dig
> yourself a deeper hole.
LOL. Imagine that. Now how could I have lost when you haven't presented ONE
rational point? Appeals to reason won't get you any brownie points in a
debate. But a profession of faith with end any debate.
>
> What can I say?
You tell me?
>> After all, unlike your, they hold to a belief in moral
>> realism that has no incongruity with their (theistic) dualism. You, OTOH,
>> hold to a belief in moral realism that has incongruity with naturalism.
>> But hey, it's your cognitive dissonance.
>
> So, Hitler's genocide isn't evil, and your squalling
> bafflegab is proof of that. Eh wot?
>
> Whats a little genocide and mass murder?
> Why to accuse Hitler of being an evil moral agent is
> just a bad example of the moral realism fallacy.
No rational argument in that....
> Debate over.
Debate over? Really?.... Did you just make an implied profession of faith?
>
> You can expect the alt.atheism regulars to think you are
> a weirdo and a kook.
I don't give a shit. What they believe doesn't make me anything. <g> You
can't imagine a thing into existence.
> And any religous believer will tell you that you are
> utterly full of crap.
I doubt that....since religous believers aren't naturalists, either.
Scott
>
> Or you are a troll.
You can imagine anything that you want.
Scott
Scott
"Richo" <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1116910486.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
And that is a profession of faith in Moral Truth.
> I would say the source of ethics and morality is the existence of
> concious beings capable of empathy.
That maybe the rational for the "is" in how ethics came about. However, that
doesn't give a (justifiable) rational for the "ought" of what actions are or
are not moral. See J. L. Mackie's Inventing Right and Wrong. Like gods,
humans invent right and wrong the same way the invent other mythologies. The
conjure up right and wrong out of their imaginations.
If you make any attempt to ground the ought in Naturalism you will generate
a naturalistic fallacy. And it doesn't matter if that ought is based upon
eugenics, empathy, or whatever.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html
"In the philosophical doctrine known as moral naturalism, moral systems are
explained in terms of the social or biological properties of humans. This is
often a Darwinian approach. The point I want to make is that not only
explaining but proposing a moral system in this way commits what GE Moore
famously called the "Naturalistic Fallacy". You can give a naturalistic
explanation of morals without either justifying or invalidating those moral
principles. Explanation and justification are two different activities. So,
too, with ontology. You can accept the methodological assumption of
naturalism in science without invalidating non-naturalistic ontologies. They
just aren't scientific. In my view, ontologies outside science are a matter
of personal choice. And as Cicero once said, in matters of taste there is no
dispute. In science, there is (legitimate) dispute. Therefore, science is
more than a matter of taste."
Scott
>
>>
>> > (3) The set of all Gods and the set of all m.f.b.d. may be the
> empty
>> > set - in which case even if you could find an ordering relation
> there
>> > would be no elements to order and hence no "greatest" element to
> find.
>> > (4)You cannot argue things into existence.
>>
>> Just like with Human Rights and Human dignity!!!
>> Just like with liberalism is ethically superior to conservatism!!!
>> Just like with Humanism is ethically superior to Nazism!!!
>> Just like.....etc.
>>
>> Now you could say you prefer one to the other but so what.... or BFD
> as the
>> saying goes?
>>
> Not entirely sure what you are on about.
Actually are reference back to wcb's argument.
> You asked "why is it bullshit" and I told you, and now you are going on
> about ethics apropos of nothing in particular.
> My guess is you have some mytical belief that ethics and morality are
> meaningless without a God.
No. I'm saying ethics, like gods, isn't anything more than mythologies to
Naturalism/Materialism.
Scott
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:PTHke.972$3D6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> Maybe.
>> I would say ethics "exist" in a completely different sense to the way
>> beings exist (or dont exist).
BTW at the very least this is Platonism. Naturalism rejects that.
Scott
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:muj491h0e1epec2g4...@4ax.com...
> On 23 May 2005 14:36:45 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <pa...@paul-robinson.us>
>>
>>I think that being an agnostic helps me here as I am neither
>>contaminated by christian religious mythology nor blinded by atheist
>>religious mythology.
>
> What "atheist religious mythology"? Hint: that's a figment of your
> imagination.
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm
Denis Loubet
>
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:1116901692.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> Ok. But my imagination has nothing to do with reality.
>> >
>> > I don't agree. Can something be real that is fundamentally
>> > impossible to imagine?
>>
>> Sure! Why not?
>
> Because if you can't even imagine it you can't
> say anything about it and 'it', therefore, doesn't
> really mean anything at all.
Fine. The limits of our imagination does not determine reality. Would you
agree with that statement?
>> > I say that a totally unobserved reality is
>> > impossible to imagine, and is therefore impossible to
>> > name, to talk about, or validly say it even exists.
>>
>> That's irrelevant to whether it exists or not.
>
> Again, what our remarks about 'it' amount to is
> that 'it' means nothing at all, so that the only
> valid conversation we can have about 'it' is that
> our conversation about 'it' can't be valid.
So to answer your question, I must not address the subject of the question
in any way?
Sigh. Why I play these games...
Are you asserting that our imaginations determine reality?
>> > It is therefore a reasonable view that nothing can
>> > exist that cannot even be imagined by any mind and,
>> > if it could exist, no mind could ever talk about it,
>> > or even know it.
>>
>> I fail to see the connection. The reasonable view is that if there's
>> something that we cannot imagine or frame in any way, we'll never
> know. That
>> says absolutely nothing about whether whatever it is exists or not.
>
>> Denis Loubet
>> dlo...@io.com
>> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
>
>
> It says that we can't even talk about it,
> never mind include it in a theory.
Then what the fuck are you talking about?
--
John Baker
And would that "conceptual impossibility" be empirically demonstrable,
or would it be, as I suspect, merely your opinion?
>
>Alen
thomas p
wrote:
Scott always insists on providing his opponents with an argument,
which he then attacks.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
Risto Karttunen
>
> Now, what's your evidence that the real world is not simply an
> halucination draped over your senses?
>
but hallucination?
>
> One of the points of Christian mythology holds individuals
responsible
> for being contaminated by sin as a result of someone else's actions.
>
level. I would rather say that I'm a sinner because I am able to
discern the good from the evil. To have denotations and connotations
for both "good" and "evil", to think and talk, to make comparisons, to
realize the incompatibility of the relative with the Absolute...
>
> 2+2=4 comes from the arbitrary dictates of mathematicians of what
they
> claim the rules of mathematics are.
>
and summed things before any "arbitrary dictates of mathematicians",
even before they could write.
--
risto
thomas p
>
>"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:PTHke.972$3D6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Richo" <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>
>>> Maybe.
>>> I would say ethics "exist" in a completely different sense to the way
>>> beings exist (or dont exist).
>
>BTW at the very least this is Platonism. Naturalism rejects that.
And Scott continues to argue with his imaginary opponents. Well, it
seems to make him happy.
raven1
>
>raven1 wrote:
>
>>
>> No, it's an example of the GIGO principle, as you haven't established
>> that every event needs an observer, just asserted it from authority,
>> which is why it's unsurprising that the argument collapses when
>> analyzed..
>
>I didn't assert it from authority,
I seem to recall a citation of Berkeley, but never mind that for now.
> but
>from a conceptual impossibility.
In other words, Argument from Personal Incredulity.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
raven1
>> You then try to tell me evil does not exist.
>
><rolling eyes> If naturalism is the correct metaphysical discription of
>reality, then evil in fact does not exist as anything more than
>fantasy...just like gods. Did you notice the qualifier?
>
>If you believe evil is a real aspect of reality, you cannot hold to a belief
>in Naturalism. No way and no how can you do so without being irrational.
Why not?
wcb
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:47:24 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> You then try to tell me evil does not exist.
>>
>><rolling eyes> If naturalism is the correct metaphysical discription of
>>reality, then evil in fact does not exist as anything more than
>>fantasy...just like gods. Did you notice the qualifier?
>>
>>If you believe evil is a real aspect of reality, you cannot hold to a
>>belief in Naturalism. No way and no how can you do so without being
>>irrational.
>
> Why not?
When something like Hitler and genocide happens, I am not allowed
to call that evil?
Because I am not a theist who holds absolutes come from god?
Isn't it amazing how a bit of bad theology or phiolosphy
can destroy rational thinking?
Logically, when somebody like Hitler leads the world
into mass murder, war and genocide based on bad conspiracy think
scapegoating, that is wrong and unacceptable.
But this joker is telling us we aren't allowed to use
logic or common sense to label such things evil.
Amazing!
Consider this. God is supposedly free, he has free will,
he is not controlled by any outside agency.
He has a good nature incapable of doing evil, he is
omnibenevolent.
Yet theology claims we are not allowed his inability to do
evil, because of his good nature means he is not omnipotent.
But if god can not do evil, and has free will, why then can
he not give man a likewise godlike good nature and free will
such as god enjoys?
Moral evil exists. To try to skirt these issues by saying
evil does not exist is stupid.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> Josef Balluch wrote:
> > In a message sent 'round the world, alen poured fuel on the fire with
> > the following:
> My point is that to even create a concept of
> something that existed before myself, I have to
> include the concept of an observer that also
> existed before myself, since I always project an
> observation of everything I conceive, and cannot
> do otherwise.
If my mind can generate a reality then time is also a product of my
mind. My mind can thus generate the past and the future, and the things
that are in the past or future.
> > > My argument is that, IF the Big Bang
> > > existed before us, it nevertheless must have had
> > > an observer.
> >
> >
> >
> > And as you stated in your original post, your imagining something is
> an
> > "observation". Thus we can certainly be the "observers" of a BB that
> > preceded us.
> To even think the thought 'preceded us' you must
> automatically include an observation that also
> 'preceded us', or you can't think the thought at all.
And as shown above, I can generate the event which "preceded" me.
Regards,
Josef
Ideals are very often formed in the effort to escape from the hard task
of dealing with facts.
-- William Sumner
alen
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1116945337....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It says that we can't even talk about it,
> > never mind include it in a theory.
>
> Then what the fuck are you talking about?
That we can't talk about the Big Bang having
no observer, and therefore have no option but
to accept that it necessarily had an observer.
Alen
Richo
thomas p wrote:
> On 23 May 2005 21:54:46 -0700, "Richo" <m.rich...@utas.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
><snip>
> >Not entirely sure what you are on about.
> >You asked "why is it bullshit" and I told you, and now you are going on
> >about ethics apropos of nothing in particular.
> >My guess is you have some mytical belief that ethics and morality are
> >meaningless without a God.
> >Just a guess.
> >I don't share that belief so it's not a problem for me.
> >
> >Mark.
>
> Scott always insists on providing his opponents with an argument,
> which he then attacks.
Ah! I thought something like that was happening.
I was trying to make some sense of it.
We shouldn't continue to expect things (especially people) to make
sense - but we cant help ourselves.
8-)
Mark.
Denis Loubet
That doesn't make any sense.
Why should the presence or absence of an observer have anything to do with
an event?
Are you saying that if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around
to hear it, it didn't fall?
Richo
Perhaps.
Is that a really, really, bad thing in your opinion?
Is it subjectively or objectively bad?
>
> > I would say the source of ethics and morality is the existence of
> > concious beings capable of empathy.
>
>
> That maybe the rational for the "is" in how ethics came about.
Thanks, I am so glad you approve.
> However, that
> doesn't give a (justifiable) rational for the "ought" of what actions are or
> are not moral. See J. L. Mackie's Inventing Right and Wrong. Like gods,
> humans invent right and wrong the same way the invent other mythologies. The
> conjure up right and wrong out of their imaginations.
>
Pleasure and pain are not imaginary neither are love and grief - you
(and whomever you want to quote as an authority) need to distinguish
between "subjective"/"relative" and "imaginary".
Something can be both real and subjective.
In fact the really important things in life are subjective.
> If you make any attempt to ground the ought in Naturalism you will generate
> a naturalistic fallacy.
OK. I'll avoid it then.
<snip>
> > You asked "why is it bullshit" and I told you, and now you are going on
> > about ethics apropos of nothing in particular.
> > My guess is you have some mytical belief that ethics and morality are
> > meaningless without a God.
>
> No. I'm saying ethics, like gods, isn't anything more than mythologies to
> Naturalism/Materialism.
>
Well maybe Naturalism/materialism has its limitations.
Mark.
Fred Stone
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
But you are talking about the Big Bang having no observer.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
The Great Hairy One
br...@no.spam.mail.com says...
Gidday Eric,
Hey, what happened to you in that other thread we were involved in? You
stopped posting.
> The concept of god is observed by the human mind, but God himself is
> not a concept, therefore can't be observed or perceived by the mind.
A concept is purely based in the imagination. It can not be observed.
And the christian god-concept is also pure imagination.
> To the mind, there are two kinds of existences, the perceivable
> existence and the unperceivable existence. The universe is the
> perceivable existence. God is the unperceivable existence.
... unperceivable existence...? You realise that if this god-concept is
unperceivable, we can't interact with it in any way, right?
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
alen
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1116990618.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Denis Loubet wrote:
> >> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> >> news:1116945337....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> >
> >> > It says that we can't even talk about it,
> >> > never mind include it in a theory.
> >>
> >> Then what the fuck are you talking about?
> >
> > That we can't talk about the Big Bang having
> > no observer, and therefore have no option but
> > to accept that it necessarily had an observer.
>
> That doesn't make any sense.
>
> Why should the presence or absence of an observer have anything to do with
> an event?
>
> Are you saying that if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around
> to hear it, it didn't fall?
I think that I have said about all I can,
and have come to the point where I shall
have to leave it to everyone to make up their
own minds about what is the true argument
in respect of the topic on this thread.
Alen
Scott
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:3u1791pb9ff35ne4r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:47:24 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> You then try to tell me evil does not exist.
>>
>><rolling eyes> If naturalism is the correct metaphysical discription of
>>reality, then evil in fact does not exist as anything more than
>>fantasy...just like gods. Did you notice the qualifier?
>>
>>If you believe evil is a real aspect of reality, you cannot hold to a
>>belief
>>in Naturalism. No way and no how can you do so without being irrational.
>
> Why not?
Because evil would have to be objective to be real, aka moral realism. In
short, evil would have to be a natural fact. Moral truth would have to be a
*real* aspect of reality and not some invented mythology. To Naturalism,
nature is both atheistic and amoralistic.
Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are moral anti-realism/irrealism.
Just like all other mythologies, such as gods, morals are the not
irrealistic, subjective imprinting onto nature by humans. Compare:
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
Also:
http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/robert_noggle/Phl-397/Lecture%20notes/meta-ethics.htm
THE "PROBLEM WITH ETHICS"
Ethical discourse appears to be about moral facts and (objective) moral
properties, yet it is difficult to understand what a moral fact or
(objective) moral property could be. It is nothing we can observe directly,
nor is it anything we can measure with scientific instruments, nor is it
anything that seems to make any detectable empirical difference to the
world. If there moral facts and objective moral properties, they seem to be
of a very different kind from ordinary facts. So we think and talk of
morality as though there are moral facts; yet it is not clear that these
things really exist, or what it would even mean to claim that such facts
"really" exist. <end quote>
How about a compatibility argument were a person attempts to hold to
philosophies at once?
Atheism & theism: not compatible. (To do so is irrational)
Atheism to anything else so long as it doesn't include gods: compatible. For
example:
Atheism & spiritualism: compatible
Atheism & Platonism: compatible
Atheism & Moral Realism (universal moral truths, aka universalism):
compatible.
Atheism & Humanism: compatible
Naturalism/Materialism/Physicalism (interchangeable for moral theory).
Denies the existence of any metaphysical, immaterial things, states, and
qualities, such as Moral Realism. What's real can in theory be investigated
by science.
Naturalism & Atheism: compatible
Naturalism & Spiritualism: incompatible
Naturalism & Platonism: incompatible (no platonic realms)
Naturalism & Moral Realism: incompatible
Naturalism & Humanism: incompatible (To do so is irrational)
Sorry Naturalists, Naturalism and Humanism are NOT compatible ideologies.
Why? Because Naturalism denies moral realism while Humanism relies upon a
belief in moral universalism, in moral realism, in moral truths. Quote:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm " The essential prerequisites for a
defense of human rights also include a conception of the individual as the
bearer of certain 'natural' rights and a particular view of the inherent and
equal moral worth of each rational individual. I shall discuss each in
turn....Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the
existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.
Moral universalism posits the existence of rationally identifiable
trans-cultural and trans-historical moral truths."
To Naturalism, that quote commits a Naturalistic Fallacy by claiming:
individuals are the bearers of certain 'natural' rights and possessors of
particular **inherent** and equal moral worth (value)". To Naturalism, there
are no inherent values, worths, or rights in nature of any kind.
Humanism is a rejection of meta-ethical moral anti-realism.
Natualism is a rejection of meta-ethical moral realism.
How can a person rationally hold both beliefs?
if you didn't read the realism/anit-realism argument above, I refer you bact
to it:
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
What do the vast majority of atheists base there disbelief in theism upon?
Naturalism.
Scott
Scott
You need to listen and learn. I assure you, I could this very argument to
talk.origins and you will see smart atheists w/ phd's agreeing with it.