Thews40 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Re: The Meaning of Life Stathis Papaioannou Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:10:33 -0800 On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <> wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <> wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor < > wrote: > > > > > I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually > > > don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is > > > ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind > > > of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. > > > > > There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these > > > criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, > > > > science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as > > > fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science > > > conventionally has been limited to the "material" (whatever that > > > means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a vicious circle > > > actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have > > > in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to > > > metaphysics. > > > > > [side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, > > > as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe > > > and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This > > > limits more than anything the amount of "sense" we can make out of > > > Everything.] > > > > > However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all > > > things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, > > > is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes > > > that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and > > > effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've > > > mentioned above) without getting into the positivist vicious circle. > > > > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we > can > > do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best > > guess as to what's going on. > > This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly > disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. > Science is just a systematization of this > > process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. > > So science is a just systematization of a metaphysical judgment. I > agree. > > > However, it's > > all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow > pigs > > might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. > I > > would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is > no > > reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute > certainty. A > > metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an > > anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant > as > > well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or > absolute > > anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are > some > > things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be > > unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up > absolute certainty. Also I don't know what "absolute meaning" means, > unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case > I don't hold that view. Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable". I read into this an implication that God would solve the problem because he could be outside the system, indeed outside all possible systems. But this runs into two problems. The first is that positivists are in fact very modest and make no claim to explain everything; the very opposite, in fact. The second is that the concept of an entity outside all possible systems, and therefore requiring no cause, design, meaning or any of the other things allegedly necessary for the universe and its components constitutes a restatement of the ontological argument for the existence of God, an argument that is 900 years old and has been rejected as invalid even by most theists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 I dont understand or want to understand 1 word of that I justed wanted to say it was good to see you Thews its been a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 There was a really interesting article I found once that was a primer on converting metaphysics believers to christianity and how difficult it was, due to the fundamentally positive nature of the metaphysics belief system, versus the punishment-based christian system. I will try to find a link to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 I really appreciate the effort you took to edit that into paragraphs and such as opposed to just blindly cutting-and-pasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Anyway, I don't recall that the scientific method claim absolute meaning or absolute certainty - the MOST certain thing you can say is that based on what we know at this point in time, and on replicable experiments, such-and-such appears to be true. Now, because replicable experiments over what is probably close to millennia in some cases has shown that, say, gravity is a constant force, it creates a level of certainty that is by any reasonable measure "absolute." But if a better theory comes along and disproves a even the longest-held belief, it must be accepted as being true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispirons Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 i prefer pigs (three different ones) from pink floyds animal cd. YOU F'ED UP OLD HAG.......HA HA CHARADE YOU ARE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 I love you. Dont forget it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 I still believe in God :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted April 29, 2007 Author Share Posted April 29, 2007 I just thought it was interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmanzzzz Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 I really appreciate the effort you took to edit that into paragraphs and such as opposed to just blindly cutting-and-pasting. unreadable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Anyway, I don't recall that the scientific method claim absolute meaning or absolute certainty - the MOST certain thing you can say is that based on what we know at this point in time, and on replicable experiments, such-and-such appears to be true. Now, because replicable experiments over what is probably close to millennia in some cases has shown that, say, gravity is a constant force, it creates a level of certainty that is by any reasonable measure "absolute." But if a better theory comes along and disproves a even the longest-held belief, it must be accepted as being true. This is the part I found interesting... "Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of "sense" we can make out of Everything." A tired argument to be sure, but acceptance of a finite mind is a variable that must be accepted to understand its limitations. It's all a long strange trip and I've thought about this a lot, and I just can't understand the logic in the thought process that there is no God. I really can't, because its base would then be infinite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 There was a really interesting article I found once that was a primer on converting metaphysics believers to christianity and how difficult it was, due to the fundamentally positive nature of the metaphysics belief system, versus the punishment-based christian system. I will try to find a link to it. Christianity is punishment based? I mean unless you are into the fred phelps thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 the box is back, baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 One more thing… this argument usually boils down to Christianity vs. atheism. Christianity is normally associated with right wing politics, and takes a liberal vs. conservatism path. This argument only defines God as an entity, as whatever God means to the individual is a spiritually based personal choice. My point in this, is that if you conclude there is no God, that’s your choice and I just don’t understand it, because its logical base is either based upon an unknown, or a conclusion that’s base is infinite. The paradox in this is, is that logic, or “sense”, can’t be concluded from an infinite perspective with a finite thought process. I am a Christian and have no reservations about it. It doesn’t make me better than anyone, and that patronizing sentiment is something that is evident in some Christians. The statement that, “I’m saved”, implies that God’s decision has been made by the individual. A more relevant statement would be, “I believe I know what it takes to be saved” would be more accurate. Semantics maybe, but the crux of this, is that all Christians are not lumped into the same pot, and some are hypocrites. In the soul search mode I found something quite real. I think they’re called “life bridge” churches, but the one I found here pertains to modern-day issues. The lead pastor (Jim Burgan) is as real as it gets, and he’s acknowledged the hypocrisy. You can listen to it if you wish, and for what it’s worth, the “Welcome to the jungle” series was my favorite… especially “The wolf” segment. http://www.flatironschurch.com/listen/index.html. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 One more thing… this argument usually boils down to Christianity vs. atheism. Christianity is normally associated with right wing politics, and takes a liberal vs. conservatism path. This argument only defines God as an entity, as whatever God means to the individual is a spiritually based personal choice. My point in this, is that if you conclude there is no God, that’s your choice and I just don’t understand it, because its logical base is either based upon an unknown, or a conclusion that’s base is infinite. The paradox in this is, is that logic, or “sense”, can’t be concluded from an infinite perspective with a finite thought process. Logically, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any gods. Therefore, there is an equal leap of faith (so to speak) to either believe or disbelieve. However, since believeing comes with several flavors of support groups, it is the far easier path from a social perspective. That being said, in my experience logical, fact based, independently verified evidence points more strongly towards the lack of any gods than it does towards their existence. It strikes me that by definining what you're attempting to understand as infinite and limiting human capacity for understanding as finite you create a disingenuous argument. The fact is that humans can understand the infinite. For example, we understand the universe by breaking it down to smaller pieces that may or may not be broken down to smaller pieces for which we do have understanding. By phrasing it as you have it makes it appear that the two are incompatable and therefore, we must accept that this infinite exists as explained by others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Logically, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any gods. Therefore, there is an equal leap of faith (so to speak) to either believe or disbelieve. However, since believeing comes with several flavors of support groups, it is the far easier path from a social perspective. That being said, in my experience logical, fact based, independently verified evidence points more strongly towards the lack of any gods than it does towards their existence. It strikes me that by definining what you're attempting to understand as infinite and limiting human capacity for understanding as finite you create a disingenuous argument. The fact is that humans can understand the infinite. For example, we understand the universe by breaking it down to smaller pieces that may or may not be broken down to smaller pieces for which we do have understanding. By phrasing it as you have it makes it appear that the two are incompatable and therefore, we must accept that this infinite exists as explained by others. Agree on the first point... neither argument can be proven. Disagree on the fact humans can understand infinite concepts. We can, conceptually, but cannot in practice .Attempting to measure the height and width of the universe is a good example. What’s on the other side of the end? How about another 100 lights years after that? Or 100 after that... In the logical thought process of what you perceive to be time zero (the beginning of everything), time zero is finite. Assuming for argument’s sake this is either the big bang or when God created the universe, it has to start at a given time. You can say that you can understand the infinite time before time zero, but I’d counter with the fact that you can’t. You think you can, but since time is infinite you really can’t. Which brings us back to doh, and the argument stalls with where matter came from, vs. who made God. I contend neither can be proven as fact, which the reverts back the logical base. The logical base of a belief in God creating the universe doesn’t require an answer for the infinite question of who made God. God is infinite, I am finite and I can’t understand. The counter argument that there is no God, would then require an answer to where matter came from, or to discount the question as a variable that doesn’t require an answer (this is where I find logic lacking). Either path is a leap of faith, and I guess I just don’t understand the logical thought process that doesn’t need to formulate an answer to where matter came from. It’s an infinite question… neither of us can answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 The logical base of a belief in God creating the universe doesn’t require an answer for the infinite question of who made God. God is infinite, I am finite and I can’t understand. The counter argument that there is no God, would then require an answer to where matter came from, or to discount the question as a variable that doesn’t require an answer (this is where I find logic lacking). What of the thought process that the universe is for all intents and purposes infinite, and beyond our ability to comprehend? Occam's Razor is quite useful here as far as simply taking the universe as infinite and unknowable, as opposed to going one step up and saying God is infinite and unknowable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 (edited) What of the thought process that the universe is for all intents and purposes infinite, and beyond our ability to comprehend? Occam's Razor is quite useful here as far as simply taking the universe as infinite and unknowable, as opposed to going one step up and saying God is infinite and unknowable. What's the difference? Both are unknowable and infinite, and we as humans are finite... this is fact in my opinion. My point is the logical base for opinion. If your opinion is based upon an unknown, there is no right or wrong answer as neither can be proven... it's a judgment call. Acknowledging both are unknowable and formulating an opinion based on logic that there is no God, is where I find the void in atheism. If there is no God, then where did matter come from? If you don't care to formulate a basis in logic accepting finite vs. infinite capability, then an answer using the scientific method requires proof, which also requires you formulate an opinion based in logic if you believe there is no God. Given both arguments, what's the logical base for where matter came from if God doesn't exist? Edited April 30, 2007 by Thews40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 we as humans are finite... IMO, this is a flaw in your argument. You argue that humans ARE finite in their capacity for understanding and you could be right......now. But what of the future? Will humans always be finite? If not, what then becomes of God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 what's the logical base for where matter came from if God doesn't exist? It's unknowable - just as the how of God is unknowable. I'd think that's fairly obvious. And if an active, loving Judeo-Christian God DID exist, his existence should be OBVIOUS - reading the Bible, if it's supposed to be true, God was all over the place talking to people, smiting Philistines, etc etc at LEAST up until 33 AD or so. Now he only talks to W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 So in a parrellel universe is timmay's dick big enough he doesn't need a vette? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 So in a parrellel universe is timmay's dick big enough he doesn't need a vette? You always have a unique perspective. In a parallel universe, a Corvette always helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 You always have a unique perspective. In a parallel universe, a Corvette always helps It's the Josh Gordon. His mind is not finite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 It's unknowable - just as the how of God is unknowable. I'd think that's fairly obvious. And if an active, loving Judeo-Christian God DID exist, his existence should be OBVIOUS - reading the Bible, if it's supposed to be true, God was all over the place talking to people, smiting Philistines, etc etc at LEAST up until 33 AD or so. Now he only talks to W. I can't think for God and don't try. Life isn't fair, and it's a common argument asking why a "loving" God would allow tragedy. Having been dead before (I know, but it really did happen for about 30 seconds), life itself seemed like the matrix, or a dream I had awoken from. All that mattered was truth as I waited for what happened next, and in the afterlife, if “forever” takes on the definition of infinity, then the tragedy that befalls some humans is only a temporary time frame. It’s all a learning process to the soul IMO, and what’s learned is the important part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 The paradox in this is, is that logic, or “sense”, can’t be concluded from an infinite perspective with a finite thought process. This is awesome. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.