The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[seattlegal]

Good answer. It brings to mind this quote:

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women.
--Learned Hand

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Hey, I mosh with some pretty hardcore skeptics. {Some of which don't even recognize behavioural science and psychology as "true science."} I'm used to having everything questioned.

Hi,

One of them has a name beginning with K, as I recall.

s.

PS And don't try winding me up by asking for proof, just say "yes" !

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

One of them has a name beginning with K, as I recall.

s.

PS And don't try winding me up by asking for proof, just say "yes" !

That one is a caricature of a hardcore skeptic.

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I never found the right moment to mention I lectured in the subject

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

I never found the right moment to mention I lectured in the subject

s.

Caricature?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Caricature?

je ne comprends pas...

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

je ne comprends pas...

s.

nevermind...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

In that particular model, perhaps not. However that wasn't the model I had in mind with my premise.

Logic is false if the premise is false, correct? So what is your premise and where did it come from again?

Was Aristotle a man that grew from mud? Did his ideas come from mud too? If not, then describe to me the premise that your logic model hinges on. Did your premise come from the mud? If not, then from where? How can anyone test or prove your premise to see if it is true, and thus your logic true?

The logic I presented asked you for the premise: Does mud need further definition? You are welcome to define science and then scientifically study the mud to see if the premise is true.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I think what I'm trying to get across here is that to use a linear dynamic to explain/prove a non linear reality is not helpful at best.

Can you define non-linear reality for me?

I know what non-linear means in math and physics, but I am left questioning what you mean. Is this another undefined term? I consider non-linear to be a physical term, correct? In other words I, you, and God may or may not be more than physical, but linear and non-linear are both concepts of something physical in this world, correct?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Logic is false if the premise is false, correct? So what is your premise and where did it come from again?

Was Aristotle a man that grew from mud? Did his ideas come from mud too? If not, then describe to me the premise that your logic model hinges on. Did your premise come from the mud? If not, then from where? How can anyone test or prove your premise to see if it is true, and thus your logic true?

The logic I presented asked you for the premise: Does mud need further definition? You are welcome to define science and then scientifically study the mud to see if the premise is true.

Okay, we can play in this ballpark if you wish, though I admit to not understanding your intent.
My original contention was that by asking a theist to define God in his proof, we automatically place him in a dilemma, to define that which by it's claimed nature is undefineable. If I remember correctly the novelist/philosopher Pirsig had a similar problem with his idea of "Quality"
When you introduce the origin of all logic and man as being from mud that seems to be another argument altogether unless I seriously misunderstand your statement. If that is the case I probably need that explained to me, and please do slowly for my benefit?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Can you define non-linear reality for me?

I know what non-linear means in math and physics, but I am left questioning what you mean. Is this another undefined term? I consider non-linear to be a physical term, correct? In other words I, you, and God may or may not be more than physical, but linear and non-linear are both concepts of something physical in this world, correct?

Sorry if this seems confusing cyberpi, that wan't my intent. I was using the term "non-linear dynamic" to refer to an intuitive leap which is not really logical at all. I use the term to avoid the inevitable intellect vs inuitive viewpoint on what might be termed the Absolute. In this I ask forbearance for introducing what must seem to be the mystics way out of the dilemma,for if we are to venture into the non physical our language must become something other than a "first this then that" or "if this then that" kind of communication.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Okay, we can play in this ballpark if you wish, though I admit to not understanding your intent.
My original contention was that by asking a theist to define God in his proof, we automatically place him in a dilemma, to define that which by it's claimed nature is undefineable. If I remember correctly the novelist/philosopher Pirsig had a similar problem with his idea of "Quality"
When you introduce the origin of all logic and man as being from mud that seems to be another argument altogether unless I seriously misunderstand your statement. If that is the case I probably need that explained to me, and please do slowly for my benefit?

My contention is that by asking an atheist to define where him, his logic, or his ideas came from, that we automatically place him in a dilemma, to define that which by it's claimed nature does NOT sufficiently define him or his logic. But if the atheist claims that he has defined it, measured it, or proved it anyway, then as a theist I shrug and realize that for him god does not require further definition.

Regarding logic and man from mud: I was referring to the origin of the undefined primordial soup, the random variable, the spark, the stir, the causal or the non-causal effect, the innovative leaps, the creativity, the non-linear dynamic, the emptiness, the gray matter, the elite swimmer... whatever it is that the atheist or agnostic comes up with to describe where him and his ideas come from. Such as that from Stanley Miller's experiment (Miller-Urey), or the beliefs written by Charles Darwin. Often stated as science, but I find it is just logic based on a false premise, an undefined premise, or a premise that itself comes from something that nobody can test or prove. Recognizing that, I place the onus squarely back on the atheist.

I modify the example then:
1. Where did you and/or your logic come from?
2. Does your answer sufficiently describe you and your logic so as to not require any further test or definition?
3. If yes, then you do not need God to define himself or to be defined for you.

I had dropped off any reference to God but Seattlegal was too quick to capture it... generally I find people don't like it when others try to externally define them, and I don't think God (swt) is any different. To me he is as real as my wife (or anyone)... and if I were to try to define her then I do so at my own peril.

Originally Posted by Paladin

I was using the term "non-linear dynamic" to refer to an intuitive leap which is not really logical at all. I use the term to avoid the inevitable intellect vs inuitive viewpoint on what might be termed the Absolute.

Ok... non-linear means something quite a bit different to a lot of alledgedly smart people. How about discontinuous? Perhaps meaning something that abruptly arrives or exits, starts or stops, etc... The words discontinuous and dynamic don't really belong together, in my view, but the concept and the math seems to more closely match your other words.

[seattlegal]

Alright, I'll throw out some descriptions of "non-linear reality" from various perspectives:

• effects not proportional to causes -->"he who causes to become"
• output not proportional to input -->metaphorical "transistor" effect

Feel free to add more.

[Paladin]

[quote=cyberpi;78581


Ok... non-linear means something quite a bit different to a lot of alledgedly smart people. How about discontinuous? Perhaps meaning something that abruptly arrives or exits, starts or stops, etc... The words discontinuous and dynamic don't really belong together, in my view, but the concept and the math seems to more closely match your other words.[/quote]

You bring up a good point here, aside from the antagonistic tone, about word usage. Had I realized your sensitivity on this point I would have avoided using the term nonlinear altogether, so for that I apologize. The term is used so much in mathematics and physics it is unusual to find it anywhere else, yet it does crop up in sociology as well, such as in this paper: RFI - Symbolic Interactional Theory and Nonlinear Dynamics

My original point was to share an insight into the difficulty a logical approach to the entire atheist/theist conflict could place us. This in no way was to disparage logic, or either side of the debate. Therefore there was no intent to prove rightness or wrongness in any direction. If you so desire, however to create these conditions, I will concede the point now and cut to the chase. It would be so much easier to just be wrong than to continue belaboring a tedious point.

Peace.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

1. Where did you and/or your logic come from?
2. Does your answer sufficiently describe you and your logic so as to not require any further test or definition?
3. If yes, then you do not need God to define himself or to be defined for you.

To me he is as real as my wife (or anyone)... and if I were to try to define her then I do so at my own peril.

1. Having too much intelligence for my own good :P
2. Yes?
3. I don't believe in a god.

Your own peril? Why will he smite you?